1-13 of 13 results for subject:Roads
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.181 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Roads
- We searched for
- subject_t:Roads OR subject_t:Carriageways OR subject_t:Highways OR subject_t:"Public highways" OR subject_t:Streets OR subject_t:"Trunk roads" OR subject_ses:92868
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Hill, Keith (13)
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Pollution control (13)
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what the expenditure of the Highway Agency was in Hull in each of the past five years, indicating the schemes on which it has been spent and the proposals for the next five years; and what the...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what the expenditure of the Highway Agency was in Hull in each of the past five years, indicating the schemes on which it has been spent and the proposals for the next five years; and what the...
Asked by
Kevin McNamara
(Labour)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Highways Agency
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
20 March 2001
For answer on
29 March 2001
Answered on
29 March 2001
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the expenditure of the Highways
Agency was in Hull in each of the past five years, indicating the schemes on which it has been spent and the proposals for the next
five years; and what the expenditure was for estuarial (a) ports and (b) cities, of a similar size and location to Hull. [155386]
Mr. Hill: [holding answer 26 March 2001]: The question relates to operational matters on the Trunk Road in Hull. I have accordingly
asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.
Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 29 March 2001:
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on
expenditure by the Highways Agency in Hull.
In broad terms the Agency has spent £7.631m over the past five years on routine maintenance and small-scale improvements on the A63
and A1033 in Kingston upon Hull including preparation work for the A1033 Hedon Road Improvement. This expenditure is split over the
last 5 years as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Financial year £ million
1996-97 0.177
1997-98 1.134
1998-99 1.551
1999-2000 1.943
2000-01 2.826
Total 7.631
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
The Agency allocates its resources on the basis of need and in accordance with the objectives laid down in our Business Plan as
agreed with Ministers. I regret that since information is not held by the Agency in a format that allows comparison with other
estuarial ports and cities of similar size to Hull, I am not able to supply this.
As to the future, the Agency's recently produced Business Plan for 2001/02 places a continuing emphasis on maintenance with an
increase in resources over the next 3 years. Also, construction will shortly begin on the Hedon Road Improvement at an estimated
cost of £53m. Construction will take place over a 2 1/2 year period.
In addition to this, work is underway on the Hull East-West Corridor Multi-Modal Study. Led by the Government Office Yorkshire and
Humberside the study will develop a sustainable and integrated plan to address the problems on the A63/A1033 through Kingston upon
Hull and its surrounding area. Amongst the matters being considered are measures that will: Reduce congestion on the A63/A1033
Improve the economic viability of the Port of Hull and the use of the route as part of the E20 Trans European Corridor Facilitate,
where possible, economic growth and regeneration in Kingston upon Hull and East Riding Reduce the environmental problems along the
route (in particular noise and air quality).
The study is due to report in Autumn 2001 and its findings will be taken forward to the Regional Planning Body for their
consideration in the first instance. Any proposals may subsequently go forward as candidates for programme entry.
Should you require any further information, please contact the Area Manager for this part of the Network, John Bagley at our Leeds
office, on 0113 283 6495.
Subjects
Construction; Environment protection; Expenditure; Kingston upon Hull; Highways Agency; Ports; Pollution control; Roads; Repairs and maintenance
Date
29 March 2001
Reference
155386; 365 c736-8W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards traffic noise.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards traffic noise.
Asked by
David Drew
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
24 October 2000
For answer on
30 October 2000
Answered on
30 October 2000
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his
Department's policy towards traffic noise. [135147]
Mr. Hill: An Integrated Transport White Paper explained that we need to gain a better understanding of the effects of transport
noise and expect advances in technology to provide some reductions in the impact of noise from road traffic. It is for local
authorities to decide what further measures would be appropriate on their roads. My policies as highway authority for the strategic
national road network were set out in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads" which was published along with the White Paper in July 1998. This
states that quieter surfaces are to be used for all new trunk road schemes and resurfacing existing roads in an area where noise was
a matter of concern. The Ten Year Plan for Transport, published in July, should enable the Highways Agency to install by 2011
quieter surfaces on over 60 per cent. of the national road network including all concrete stretches. In addition, funds are to be
ring-fenced to permit the Highways Agency to provide over the next ten years other measures such as noise barriers in some of the
worst and most pressing cases where there is no immediate need for the road to be resurfaced.
Subjects
Finance; Pollution control; Noise; Materials; Road traffic; Roads; Concrete; Construction methods
Date
30 October 2000
Reference
355 c304-5W;355 c305-6W; 135147
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list by area those schemes assisted by his Department to introduce noise barriers for traffic, stating his Department's financial contribution in each case. - Includes ref to 337 c681-3W.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list by area those schemes assisted by his Department to introduce noise barriers for traffic, stating his Department's financial contribution in each case. - Includes ref to 337 c681-3W.
Asked by
David Drew
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
24 October 2000
For answer on
30 October 2000
Answered on
30 October 2000
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by area those schemes
assisted by his Department to introduce noise barriers for traffic, stating his Department's financial contribution in each case.
[135149]
Mr. Hill: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 11 November 1999, Official Report, column 681W, which included a letter from the
then Chief Executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). The Department will bear
the whole cost of the works that it considers necessary.
Subjects
Finance; Pollution control; Noise; Road traffic; Roads
Date
30 October 2000
Reference
355 c304W;355 c305W; 135149
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what measures his Department has taken to assist the introduction of barriers to reduce traffic noise; what actions his Department has taken to introduce noise attenuation methods where traffic is concerned. - Includes ref to 340 c428W.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what measures his Department has taken to assist the introduction of barriers to reduce traffic noise; what actions his Department has taken to introduce noise attenuation methods where traffic is concerned. - Includes ref to 340 c428W.
Asked by
David Drew
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
24 October 2000
For answer on
30 October 2000
Answered on
30 October 2000
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measures his Department has taken to
assist the introduction of barriers to reduce traffic noise; [135148]
(2) what actions his Department has taken to introduce noise attenuation methods where traffic is concerned. [135146]
Mr. Hill: One of the main methods of mitigating and attenuating traffic noise is to reduce the noise emitted by new vehicles. The
Department has a continuing involvement in negotiating EU directives in this area. These measures have already delivered a
substantial reduction in noise levels from new vehicles. A large lorry today makes no more noise than a car of the early 1970s and
three modern cars now make less noise than one 1970s model. These measures will bring improvements as the vehicle fleet is renewed.
Negotiations on further noise reduction are likely to focus on heavy vehicles such as trucks and buses.
In addition the Department has recently been involved in negotiating an EU directive to limit tyre noise, the dominant source of
noise from traffic at speeds above 40 miles per hour. This directive is expected to be adopted shortly.
£5 million a year ring-fenced budget is being spent to mitigate and attenuate noise, primarily using barriers, at locations on the
national network where detailed studies have confirmed the severity of the problem and shown that barriers are the most effective
solution in the short term. As indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 6 December 1999, Official Report, column 427W, studies
have been commissioned at a large number of locations. The Highways Agency will be dealing with nearly all of these locations over
the next few years. In a number of cases where the road has been reassessed for resurfacing, the use of quieter materials has
affected the priority for other measures.
Subjects
EU action; Motor vehicles; Pollution control; Noise; Materials; Road traffic; Roads; Tyres; Construction methods
Date
30 October 2000
Reference
355 c303-4W;355 c305W; 135148;135146
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, If it is his policy to support the approval of ring roads as a means of reducing traffic congestion and pollution. (Failed OPQ)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, If it is his policy to support the approval of ring roads as a means of reducing traffic congestion and pollution. (Failed OPQ)
Asked by
Teddy Taylor
(Conservative)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 May 2000
For answer on
13 June 2000
Answered on
13 June 2000
Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to support the
approval of ring roads as a means of reducing traffic congestion and pollution. [124014]
Mr. Hill: Our policy is to support road schemes if, after consideration of alternative options and full appraisal, it is concluded
they provide sustainable solutions to transport problems and should be accorded priority having regard to available resources. In
the case of local roads it is for authorities to justify road schemes as part of their Local Transport Plans.
Subjects
Pollution control; Road traffic; Roads; Road traffic control
Date
13 June 2000
Reference
351 c544W; 124014
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will instruct the Highways Agency to add to the list of possible noise mitigation schemes, published on 11 November 1999, 337 c681-3, (a) the A46 at Harvington and (b) the M5 at Whittington.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will instruct the Highways Agency to add to the list of possible noise mitigation schemes, published on 11 November 1999, 337 c681-3, (a) the A46 at Harvington and (b) the M5 at Whittington.
Asked by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
4 May 2000
For answer on
12 May 2000
Answered on
12 May 2000
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the Highways Agency to
add to the list of possible noise mitigation schemes, published in the Official Report on 11 November 1999, columns 681-83W, (a) the
A46 at Harvington and (b) the M5 at Whittington. [121313]
Mr. Hill: No. Neither location meets the criteria established in the announcement of 22 March 1999 to determine whether the need for
noise remedial measures should be studied in further detail. The A46 at Harvington carries far less traffic than would generate a
roadside noise level of 80dB (A). The M5 at Whittington was improved more recently than 1988 and noise mitigation measures were
provided in accordance with current standards.
Subjects
Pollution control; Noise; Standards; Roads; M5; A46
Date
12 May 2000
Reference
121313; 349 c484W;349 c484-5W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will review the criteria for potential road noise mitigation schemes published on 22nd March 1999 to include roads built or widened after 1988.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will review the criteria for potential road noise mitigation schemes published on 22nd March 1999 to include roads built or widened after 1988.
Asked by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
4 May 2000
For answer on
12 May 2000
Answered on
12 May 2000
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the criteria for potential
road noise mitigation schemes published on 22 March 1999 to include roads built or widened after 1988. [121314]
Mr. Hill: The purpose of the policy is to focus attention on cases where people may not have had the benefit of noise mitigation
measures provided in accordance with current standards. These standards were introduced in 1988 and it is not appropriate to review
schemes where noise mitigation was designed within those standards.
Subjects
Pollution control; Noise; Standards; Roads
Date
12 May 2000
Reference
349 c485W; 121314
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he has set targets for the Highways Agency for noise reduction and the use of noise-reducing surfaces; and if he will make a statement; if he will make a statement on his policy on reducing noise...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he has set targets for the Highways Agency for noise reduction and the use of noise-reducing surfaces; and if he will make a statement; if he will make a statement on his policy on reducing noise...
Asked by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 April 2000
For answer on
19 April 2000
Answered on
19 April 2000
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he has set targets for the Highways
Agency for noise reduction and the use of noise-reducing surfaces; and if he will make a statement; [119760]
(2) if he will make a statement on his policy on reducing noise from trunk roads and motorways. [119761]
Mr. Hill: The Government set out their policy towards dealing with the problems of traffic noise on roads managed by the Highways
Agency in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". In addition to the increased use of quieter surfaces both for new roads and for
roads needing maintenance, we proposed to set aside a budget for the Highways Agency to provide additional mitigation in the worst
cases where no other action was being taken. The budget and qualifying criteria were announced on 22 March 1999 and a letter from
the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency listing locations which would be subject to a detailed investigation of feasible measures
was published in the official record on 11 November 1999.
For 2000-01, the Government have set a target for the Highways Agency to treat 10 sites from this list. Targets for future years
will be reviewed in the light of progress.
I have not set any target for the use of quieter road surfaces in general because the Highways Agency routinely considers their use
in all cases where a trunk road needs to be re-surfaced. The Highways Agency currently uses quieter materials for approximately 80
per cent. of the total amount of resurfacing undertaken.
Subjects
Highways Agency; Pollution control; Noise; Motorways; Standards; Road traffic; Roads
Date
19 April 2000
Reference
348 c485W; 119760;119761
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will make it his policy to replace the lighting on major roads with less light pollutant systems.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will make it his policy to replace the lighting on major roads with less light pollutant systems.
Asked by
Claire Curtis-Thomas
(Labour)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 March 2000
For answer on
7 April 2000
Answered on
7 April 2000
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to
replace the lighting on major roads with less light pollutant systems. [117089]
Mr. Hill: The Secretary of State has set the Highways Agency the objective of minimising the impact of the trunk road network on the
natural and built environment.
With respect to light pollution, all new lighting is of the less polluting type. The HA is replacing existing lighting with less
polluting systems when renewal is due or in association with other improvement works. Replacement in advance of this could not be
justified in terms of cost or disruption to motorists.
Subjects
Pollution control; Lighting; Roads
Date
7 April 2000
Reference
347 c605W; 117089
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what was the outcome of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 28th March; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what was the outcome of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 28th March; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Jim Hood
(Labour)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 March 2000
For answer on
30 March 2000
Answered on
30 March 2000
Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Transport Council
held in Brussels on 28 March; and if he will make a statement. [117118]
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome
of this week's EC Council meeting of Transport Ministers. [116843]
Mr. Hill: The Transport Council met in Brussels on 28 March. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport represented
the United Kingdom.
The Commission gave a further report on progress of the definition phase of the Galileo satellite navigation project. Commissioner
de Palacio asked for member states' support at the forthcoming World Radio Conference, to ensure that the Galileo project has the
radio frequencies needed. She reported that the public private partnership had attracted expressions of interest from the private
sector. My right hon. and noble Friend emphasised the need for full cost benefit analysis of the project. The Presidency asked for a
written report from the Commission to the June Council.
There was a debate on the Commission's Communication on air transport and the environment, first presented at the December 1999
Council. The Communication describes the Commission's proposed five-year work plan for policies and measures to limit or reduce
noise and gaseous emissions from aircraft. Member states broadly welcomed the Commission's approach. The UK was among the member
states which emphasised that, where possible, international noise standards should be developed at the global level through the
International Civil Aviation Organisation. Likewise, on the question of aviation fuel tax, my right hon. and noble Friend joined
others in stressing that this was best handled at the global level. Council Conclusions were adopted, confirming the Commission plan
and setting priority areas for action.
The Commission set out recent development on the hushkits issue. The Regulation on the use of hushkitted aircraft would come into
force on 4 May; it was possible that some changes could be made to the date of application to third country aircraft. Work would
continue on a joint declaration, committing the EU and the US to a new standard in ICAO. My right hon. and noble Friend referred to
the need for a new international standard, and stressed that the Commission should do all possible to seek a solution. The Council
agreed Conclusions, endorsing the Commission's further engagement with the US.
The Commission stated that it would be producing a list of air passengers' existing rights. This would be followed by legislative
proposals. At the June Council, they would report in full on the recent consultation exercise. The Presidency, identifying the issue
of a European Charter of Air Passenger Rights as a priority, encouraged the Commission to submit its Communication, including
legislative proposals in time for the June Council.
The Commission presented a working paper on establishment of a European aviation safety authority (EASA). My right hon. and noble
Friend expressed disappointment that the paper did not provide a full analysis of the options of an international organisation or an
EU agency, as the December Council had requested. The Presidency said that the Transport Council should aim to take a decision in
June on the best legal form for the EASA.
The Presidency tabled a revised text of the draft directive on the interoperability of conventional rail systems, which had been
presented by the Commission to the December Council, and which the UK broadly supports. The Presidency noted that substantial
progress had been made in the Working Group. The Commission agreed that progress had been made and felt that a common position on
the draft directive should be possible in June.
The Commission presented to the Council its Communication on road safety. Key proposals for action were: further development of the
European new vehicles crash testing programme (ENCAP), use of speed limiters on larger vehicles, higher levels of seatbelt and child
restraint usage, safer car fronts, and targeting of accident blackspots. Legislative proposals would follow in these areas. My right
hon. and noble Friend welcomed the general approach of the Communication, which fitted in well with the recently announced UK road
safety strategy. The Communication also refers to the Commission's intention to bring forward a recommendation for a maximum blood
alcohol level of 0.5 milligrams per millilitre. The Presidency concluded that further work should be done on the Communication, in
preparation for discussion at the June Council.
The Commission introduced new proposals on maritime safety, stressing that it was important to make progress in preventing future
accidents like that involving the Erika. Action was proposed in two stages. The first stage would involve measures tightening the
regulation on port state control of ship standards, improving control of classification societies, and phasing out single-hulled
tankers, the last in line with the US timetable. In the short-term, oil companies would be asked to avoid voluntarily the use of
tankers more than 15 years old. The second stage of the Commission's proposals involves a change in the information system for all
ships, building on the new EQUASIS international database, better monitoring of sea movements of freighters, setting up a European
Maritime Safety Agency, and examination of the liability and compensation aspects of oil pollution accidents. Member states
supported the proposals for directives on port state control and classification societies, but, more generally, the need for the
International Maritime Organisation to be involved was widely stressed. The Uk was among member states which stressed the importance
of a proper prior assessment of the economic impact of a rapid phase-out of single hulled tankers. My right hon. and noble Friend
also noted the UK's recent proposals to increase the ceiling for payments from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund
(IOPCF), and suggested that wider reform should be pursued through the IMO. The Commissioner felt that global action alone was not
enough and argued for her proposal on single hulls. The Presidency, however, asked for more work to be done in preparation for the
June Council. They urged member states to work together to increase compensation levels in the IOPCF.
Under other business, the Commission reported that there had been good progress in the High Level Group set up following the
presentation at the December Council of the Commission Communication on air traffic management ("A Single European Sky").
Subjects
Aviation; EU law; EU action; Oil; Pollution; Pollution control; Railway network; Passengers; Noise; Safety; Roads; Shipping; Satellites; Galileo system; EC Transport Council
Date
30 March 2000
Reference
347 c230-2W; 117118
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will make a statement on the outcome of this week's EC Council meeting of Transport Ministers.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will make a statement on the outcome of this week's EC Council meeting of Transport Ministers.
Asked by
Bernard Jenkin
(Conservative)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
27 March 2000
For answer on
30 March 2000
Answered on
30 March 2000
Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Transport Council
held in Brussels on 28 March; and if he will make a statement. [117118]
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome
of this week's EC Council meeting of Transport Ministers. [116843]
Mr. Hill: The Transport Council met in Brussels on 28 March. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport represented
the United Kingdom.
The Commission gave a further report on progress of the definition phase of the Galileo satellite navigation project. Commissioner
de Palacio asked for member states' support at the forthcoming World Radio Conference, to ensure that the Galileo project has the
radio frequencies needed. She reported that the public private partnership had attracted expressions of interest from the private
sector. My right hon. and noble Friend emphasised the need for full cost benefit analysis of the project. The Presidency asked for a
written report from the Commission to the June Council.
There was a debate on the Commission's Communication on air transport and the environment, first presented at the December 1999
Council. The Communication describes the Commission's proposed five-year work plan for policies and measures to limit or reduce
noise and gaseous emissions from aircraft. Member states broadly welcomed the Commission's approach. The UK was among the member
states which emphasised that, where possible, international noise standards should be developed at the global level through the
International Civil Aviation Organisation. Likewise, on the question of aviation fuel tax, my right hon. and noble Friend joined
others in stressing that this was best handled at the global level. Council Conclusions were adopted, confirming the Commission plan
and setting priority areas for action.
The Commission set out recent development on the hushkits issue. The Regulation on the use of hushkitted aircraft would come into
force on 4 May; it was possible that some changes could be made to the date of application to third country aircraft. Work would
continue on a joint declaration, committing the EU and the US to a new standard in ICAO. My right hon. and noble Friend referred to
the need for a new international standard, and stressed that the Commission should do all possible to seek a solution. The Council
agreed Conclusions, endorsing the Commission's further engagement with the US.
The Commission stated that it would be producing a list of air passengers' existing rights. This would be followed by legislative
proposals. At the June Council, they would report in full on the recent consultation exercise. The Presidency, identifying the issue
of a European Charter of Air Passenger Rights as a priority, encouraged the Commission to submit its Communication, including
legislative proposals in time for the June Council.
The Commission presented a working paper on establishment of a European aviation safety authority (EASA). My right hon. and noble
Friend expressed disappointment that the paper did not provide a full analysis of the options of an international organisation or an
EU agency, as the December Council had requested. The Presidency said that the Transport Council should aim to take a decision in
June on the best legal form for the EASA.
The Presidency tabled a revised text of the draft directive on the interoperability of conventional rail systems, which had been
presented by the Commission to the December Council, and which the UK broadly supports. The Presidency noted that substantial
progress had been made in the Working Group. The Commission agreed that progress had been made and felt that a common position on
the draft directive should be possible in June.
The Commission presented to the Council its Communication on road safety. Key proposals for action were: further development of the
European new vehicles crash testing programme (ENCAP), use of speed limiters on larger vehicles, higher levels of seatbelt and child
restraint usage, safer car fronts, and targeting of accident blackspots. Legislative proposals would follow in these areas. My right
hon. and noble Friend welcomed the general approach of the Communication, which fitted in well with the recently announced UK road
safety strategy. The Communication also refers to the Commission's intention to bring forward a recommendation for a maximum blood
alcohol level of 0.5 milligrams per millilitre. The Presidency concluded that further work should be done on the Communication, in
preparation for discussion at the June Council.
The Commission introduced new proposals on maritime safety, stressing that it was important to make progress in preventing future
accidents like that involving the Erika. Action was proposed in two stages. The first stage would involve measures tightening the
regulation on port state control of ship standards, improving control of classification societies, and phasing out single-hulled
tankers, the last in line with the US timetable. In the short-term, oil companies would be asked to avoid voluntarily the use of
tankers more than 15 years old. The second stage of the Commission's proposals involves a change in the information system for all
ships, building on the new EQUASIS international database, better monitoring of sea movements of freighters, setting up a European
Maritime Safety Agency, and examination of the liability and compensation aspects of oil pollution accidents. Member states
supported the proposals for directives on port state control and classification societies, but, more generally, the need for the
International Maritime Organisation to be involved was widely stressed. The Uk was among member states which stressed the importance
of a proper prior assessment of the economic impact of a rapid phase-out of single hulled tankers. My right hon. and noble Friend
also noted the UK's recent proposals to increase the ceiling for payments from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund
(IOPCF), and suggested that wider reform should be pursued through the IMO. The Commissioner felt that global action alone was not
enough and argued for her proposal on single hulls. The Presidency, however, asked for more work to be done in preparation for the
June Council. They urged member states to work together to increase compensation levels in the IOPCF.
Under other business, the Commission reported that there had been good progress in the High Level Group set up following the
presentation at the December Council of the Commission Communication on air traffic management ("A Single European Sky").
Subjects
Aviation; EU law; EU action; Oil; Pollution; Pollution control; Railway network; Passengers; Noise; Safety; Roads; Shipping; Satellites; Galileo system; EC Transport Council
Date
30 March 2000
Reference
347 c230-2W; 116843
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what appraisals his Department has undertaken of the time that lorries are delayed on congested motorways and trunk roads; if he intends to take action to reduce delays by lorries and other heavy vehicles; and if he...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what appraisals his Department has undertaken of the time that lorries are delayed on congested motorways and trunk roads; if he intends to take action to reduce delays by lorries and other heavy vehicles; and if he...
Asked by
Bill O'Brien
(Labour)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
29 February 2000
For answer on
7 March 2000
Answered on
7 March 2000
Mr. Bill O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what appraisals his Department has
undertaken of the time that lorries are delayed on congested motorways and trunk roads; if he intends to take action to reduce
delays by lorries and other heavy vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [112705]
Mr. Hill: In preparation for our report, "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published in January, we estimated the total amount of
extra journey time (total vehicle hours spent travelling less those which would have been incurred at free flow speeds) resulting
from congestion on English roads in 1996. By drawing on this analysis it is possible to estimate the proportion of the total amount
of time lost by different kinds of vehicle on a range of road types. Although these techniques are not yet sufficiently well
developed to allow a separate estimate to be produced for the trunk road network, estimates can be produced for motorways and A
roads as a whole. These estimates suggest that, taken together, motorways and A roads outside urban areas accounted for some 12 per
cent. of the total amount of time lost by heavy goods vehicles on English roads in 1996. This estimate includes only time lost due
to general congestion and does not allow for time lost due to incidents or road works.
Our integrated transport White Paper set out a package of measures to tackle congestion and pollution, based on concerted action by
local authorities, businesses, Government and the general public. We will continue to take this forward, including through the
Transport Bill, and our 10-year plan to modernise Britain's transport system (to be published in the summer).
Subjects
Costs; Large goods vehicles; Pollution control; Road traffic; Roads; Road traffic control
Date
7 March 2000
Reference
112705; 345 c597W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will treat applications in respect of properties on existing roads for double glazing as a method of noise reduction for residents in the same way as such applications in respect of properties on new roads.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will treat applications in respect of properties on existing roads for double glazing as a method of noise reduction for residents in the same way as such applications in respect of properties on new roads.
Asked by
Mark Oaten
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 February 2000
For answer on
10 February 2000
Answered on
10 February 2000
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will treat applications in respect of
properties on existing roads for double glazing as a method of noise reduction for residents in the same way as such applications in
respect of properties on new roads. [109379]
Mr. Hill: The Noise Insulation Regulations apply to properties affected by existing roads which have been physically altered as well
as to new roads. I have no plans to extend the scope of these Regulations to properties affected by unaltered roads.
Subjects
Pollution control; Noise; Roads; Double glazing
Date
10 February 2000
Reference
344 c235W; 109379
House
House of Commons