§ Mr. MackinlayTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if it is possible to construct the additional lanes proposed for the M25 between junctions 14 and 15 without an expansion of the existing curtilage or boundaries of the M25 at this section; [36419]
(2) for what reasons the proposed widening of the M25 between junctions 13 and 15 announced by him on 3 April exceeds the capacity which the British Airports Authority has said would be sufficient to absorb additional traffic generated by the proposed additional terminal 5 at Heathrow;
(3) pursuant to his statement of 3 April, Official Report, columns 1391–93, to what extent his traffic forecast for the M25 in the area and approaches to Heathrow airport agrees with the findings of the reassessment following the publication of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report; [36407]
(4) how the traffic forecast on which he based his decision to plan the widening of the M25 to 10 and 12 lanes over most sections varied from the forecasts previously used in support of the M25 link road scheme, the abandonment of which he announced on 3 April; [36435]
(5) if he will publish the traffic forecast for the M25 that he used when determining his decision to widen the motorway to 10 and 12 lanes over most sections; [36436]
(6) to what extent plans for additional motorway lanes proposed between junctions 12 and 16 of the M25 will require a reduction in the widths of the existing lanes or hard shoulder; [36418]
(7) what remedies or other arrangements he proposes for those people whose properties were covered by the compulsory purchase orders in connection with the defunct scheme for M25 link roads; [36414]
(8) what were the findings of the reassessment of M25 traffic growth forecasts that stated he would publish after the receipt of the SACTRA report; [36434]
(9) what factors he intends to take into account when deciding whether to conduct a public inquiry into plans for the additional motorway lanes proposed between junctions 12 and 16 of the M25; [36420]
(10) what assessment he has made of the effect of a refusal to grant planning permission in respect of BAA's application for Heathrow terminal 5 on the need to widen the M25 between junctions 13 and 15; [36429]
(11) to what extent the proposal to widen a section of the M25 to 12 and 10 lanes take into account (a) the recommendations of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution and (b) the SACTRA report; [36437]
219W(12) which sections of the M25 he intends shall not be widened to a standard of eight lanes. [36413]
§ Mr. Watts[holding answers 16 October 1995]: Following the withdrawal of the link road proposals between junctions 12 and 16, the Highways Agency has been assessing the widening schemes to be taken forward in their place. The work undertaken so far indicates that the proposed widening between junctions 12 and 15 be accommodated within the existing highway boundary. Between junctions 15 and 16, the proposals to widen to dual five lanes may require small areas of land outside the highway boundary.
The proposals, which have yet to be published, are expected to maintain standard lane widths and hard shoulders for most of the distance between junctions 12 and 15. At bridges and over certain lengths where there are restrictions, reductions in lane widths and/or discontinuous hard shoulders are expected to be necessary. Some reduction in widths and loss of hard shoulders are likely to be necessary between junctions 15 and 16 but where existing underbridges are to be widened the opportunity will be taken to reinstate hard shoulders which had earlier been dispensed with.
Traffic forecasts used to assess the change from link roads to widening were based on the same model and growth factors as the forecasts published in May 1994 with the draft Highway Orders for the then proposed link roads. But the design year adopted for the widening is 15 years from now compared with 2015 for the link roads, for the reasons explained by the Secretary of State in his announcement on 3 April. The contribution of the control motorway pilot was taken into account in determining traffic that could be catered for on this section of the M25 in the period up to 2010. This regulates speeds and sets speed limits according to conditions on the motorway.
Traffic growth is being reassessed and this includes work to test the effect of the factors identified in the SACTRA report. The Highways Agency is also taking into account the appropriate balance between road building and environmental impact raised by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. The results will be made available when details of the schemes are published.
There are remedies proposed for those people whose properties were covered by the draft compulsory purchase orders for the link roads. The Highways Agency has offered to pay all reasonable costs incurred from the date of the first notice of the draft orders by the owners of these properties in preparing an objection to the draft orders.
When the proposals for both widening schemes are published, all the comments received will be considered by the Secretaries of State before a decision on the way forward is taken. They would consider the weight and nature of objections to any draft highway orders in determining the need for an inquiry. Where the widening does not involve draft orders, as is likely between junctions 12 and 15, there is no statutory requirement for a public enquiry.
The scope of the widening of the M25 between J13 and 15 is governed by the need to reduce congestion on the motorway and provide for the predicted traffic in the next 220W 15 years, whether or not the fifth terminal at Heathrow airport proceeds. Refusal of planning permission would therefore not alter the proposals for the M25.
The only sections for which dual four lanes do not exit or for which there are no schemes in the roads programme to widen to dual four lanes are clockwise from junction 28 to junction 3.
§ Ms WalleyTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for(a) the Shetland maritime rescue co-ordination centre, (b) the Aberdeen maritime rescue co-ordination centre, (c) the Great Yarmouth MRCC, (d) the Dover MRCC, and (e) the Falmouth MRCC and (f) the Humber MRCC the dates in 1995 when the centre was understaffed and an unqualified senior watch officer was on duty; [36671]
(2) if he will list for the Shetland MRCC from September 1994 to January 1995 inclusive, the dates when the centre was undermanned and when an unqualified senior watch officer was on duty. [35700]
§ Mr. NorrisThese are operational matters for the Coastguards Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms. Joan Walley, dated 16 October 1995:
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions as the questions deal with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.Questions 2504, 2498, 2492, 2491, 2471 and 2463/94/95 were answered in my reply of 28 september in response to your letter of 23 August, addressed directly to me (copy attached).The following information replies to questions 2478 and 2486/94/95.
Coastguard instructions allow watches which are short by one Regular Watch Officer to be made up by using Auxiliary Coastguard Operations Room Assistants. The figures below show the dates when there was a shortfall on that provision. In many cases the shortfall was not for a full twelve hour watch.MRCC ABERDEEN 1995:
1 Jan-1; 13 Jan-1; 16 Jan-1, 17 Jan-1; 24 Jan-1; 4 Feb-1; 6 Feb-1; 20 Feb-1; 2 Mar-1; 20 Mar-1; 26 Mar-1; 13 Apr-1; 14 Apr-1; 18 Apr-1; 19 Apr-1; 21 Apr-1; 22 Apr-1; 29 Apr-1; 1 May-1; 25 May-1; 29 May-1; 2 Jun-1; 1 Jun-1; 15 Jun-1; 16 Jun–1; 18 Jun-1; 22 Jun-1; 24 Jun-1; 2 Jul-2; 13 Jul-1; 22 Jul-1; 23 Jul-1; 26 Jul-1; 28 Jul–1; 1 Aug—Aug-1 4 Aug-1; 6 Aug-1.
MRCC Dover
1 Apr-1; 26 Jun-1; 3 Jul-1; 4 Jul-1; 14 Jul-1; 20 Jul-1; 27 Jul-1; 2 Aug-1.
221WDuring 1995—and for Shetland, from September 1994 to January 1995—there were no shortfalls in the numbers of watchkeepers at the following rescue centres; Shetland; Humber; Yarmouth; Falmouth.There have been no occasions when a Coastguard station has been under control of an unqualified Watch Officer. Staff are selected for the post of Senior Watch Officer (SWO) and allocated to rescue centres one per watch. In their absence they are either replaced by another SWO or deputising Watch Officer. A deputising Watch Officer is a Watch Officer who is "qualified" by their initial establishment as Coastguard Officer, having successfuly completed the new entrants process and who has been approved as deputy by the Regional Management. Senior Watch Officer are required to complete a SWO (Qualifier) course run by the Coastguard Training Centre. Successful completion of this course is a perquisite to selection as SWO on a permanent basis. It is not a requirement that a deputy should have passed this course.Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 28 September 1995:
Thank you for your letter of 23 August requesting information on various aspects of Coastguard Operations.
1. The number of managers to regular watch keeping staff (Watch Officers and Senior Watch Officers) at each Coastguard Rescue Centre is as follows:
Rescue Centre Senior watch officers and watch officers Regional or district management team Shetland 12 3 Pentland 12 3 Aberdeen 19 5 Forth 12 3 Tyne Tees 13 3 Humber 14 3 Yarmouth 15 5 Thames 13 3 Dover 25 5 Solent 18 3 Portland 14 3 Brixham 14 3 Falmouth 16 6 Swansea 18 5 Milford Haven 13 3 Holyhead 12 3 Liverpool 14 3 Clyde 14 5 Oban 12 3 Stornoway 12 3 Belfast 13 3 District and Regional Management Teams (DMT/RMT) comprising Station Officers, District Controllers, Regional and Deputy Regional Controllers as well as Coastguard Officers (Senior Watch Officers and Watch Officers) am all "regular staff"; ie, uniformed, professional Coastguards. DMT and RMT members have an active Operations Room role in major emergencies and at any time if required.
The above figures do not include the 92 regular Sector Officers, nor the Auxiliary Coastguards who keep watch in rescue centres.
2. The required number of staff in operations rooms are as follows:
Senior watch officer Watch officers In each MRCC except Dover 1 3 In each MRSC 1 2 Dover 11 + 1 3 1 At MRCC Dover, each watch is headed, by a Station Officer, in addition to the Senior Watch Officer. All New Entrant Coastguards undertake an initial training lasting approximately one year. After a short familiarisation period (usually 6 to 8 weeks) at their parent station, they undertake 6 weeks intensive training at the Training Centre. They then return to their parent station for about nine months, during which time, under the guidance of the District Management Team, they work through a taskbook compiled by the Training Centre. They return to the Training Centre for a two week revision and examination period at the end of the year. Subject to successful completion of the taskbook, the exams, an interview board and management reports, they are appointed Coastguard Watch Officers.
About two years later they could be ready to take Senior Watch Officer and Sector Officer Qualifying Courses. Passing the examinations on these courses, together with management reports indicating their fitness, qualifies them for selection to these posts.
Auxiliary Coastguard Operations Room Assistants receive 80 hours initial training locally, culminating in examinations. They receive 20 hours refresher training per annum thereafter.
222W3. No rescue centres have close in the last five years. The following sector bases and lookouts have closed in the last five years:
- 1991: three (Seaton Sluice, Tyne Tees District) (Maryport and Aberdon lookouts)
- 1992: five (Sizewell and Orford, Thames District) (Bass Point, Portland Bill and Whitehaven lookouts)
- 1993: one (Polrvan lookout)
- 1994: six (Sea Palling, Yarmouth District) (Ives, Gwennap Head, Phyl, Cemaes and Aberdovey lookouts)
- 1995: three (Prawle, Peverll Point, Fleetwood lookouts)
The above does not include the relocation of rescue centres of sector bases in new buildings or the amalgamation or sector bases (there have been 2 of these).
4. There is no specific limit on overtime other than that applied by the Regional and District Controllers to ensure that individual performance is not compromised.
5. There have been no occasions when a Coastguard station has been under the control of an unqualified Watch Officer. Staff are selected for the post of Senior Watch Officer (SWO) and allocated to rescue centres one per watch. In their absence they are either replaced by another SWO or a deputising Watch Officer. A deputising Watch Officer is a Watch Officer who is qualified by his or her initial establishment as Coastguard Officer having successfully completed the new entrant's process and who has been approved as deputy by the Regional Management. In order to be selected as SWO on a permanent basis Watch Officers are required to complete a SWO (Qualifier) course run by the Coastguard Training Centre. It is not a requirement that a deputy should have passed this course.
6. All rescue centres are equipped with rest rooms and comprehensively equipped kitchens. There is not requirement for Officers to sustain a 24 hour shift or to need sleeping accommodation.
7. The table below shows the average amounts of overtime (in hours per week) for each Region in each of the last five years. The averages include all regular watchkeeping staff, i.e, Senior Watch Officers as well as Watch Officers.
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 North and East Scotland 5.4 5.3 5.5 4.2 6.8 Eastern 4.4 4.6 3.9 3.5 3.4 South Eastern 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.5 1.9 South Western 5.7 5.8 4.9 4.4 5.1 Western 4.5 4.6 4.0 3.8 3.9 West of Scotland and Northern Ireland 8.7 7.4 6.7 3.8 3.6 8. The basic watch level at a rescue centre is the watch level required to meet the normal day-to-day operational commitments at that centre.