House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 May 1992

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle : With the leave of the House I shall reply to the debate. It is a great pleasure to reply to a useful and wide-ranging debate which has covered the

Column 907

whole spectrum of road safety. Many Members have spoken and raised many issues and I hope that they will understand if I do not reply to them all. I shall certainly write to them on matters that I do not cover in my winding-up speech.

I listened with great pleasure to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and thank him for his courteous words about Sir Charles Irving, his predecessor. We shall hear much more about him, and I wish him well. It was also a great pleasure to hear second speeches from hon. Friends who are already accomplished campaigners. I listened with care to my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), and to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I welcome their enthusiasm and know that we shall hear them again.

The debate should be seen in the context of our policy for a balanced transport policy. There has been much talk about investment in public transport and we have, and intend to continue to have, a balanced transport policy. That is evidenced by our increasing support for public transport, for trains and for London Underground, and by our intention that buses should be used better. Safety is an important ingredient of that overall balanced strategy.

Before considering some of the issues that have been raised today, it is worth saying how much agreement there is between both sides of the House on road safety policy. In nearly every regard, any difference between us has been one of approach rather than of general thrust of policy. We all agree on the importance of road safety and on the need to ensure that all road users can travel as safely as possible. We agree that, although we can be proud of having one of the best road safety records in the world, we must strive to do even better. We agree that the right way to achieve that is to set a target for reducing the number of casualties on our roads. We have tried to do that and we are still striving towards that target. We agree that no Government could achieve the reduction that we are seeking by their own actions alone ; it must involve the whole of society. We agree that a casualty reduction cannot be achieved by concentrating on the single aspect of road safety. It is necessary to take forward road safety measures across a broad front. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) said, we must strive for better behaviour and understanding by all road users. We must look for safer vehicles and better roads.

There was a strong feeling that we should do far more for the safety of children and that we should pursue traffic-calming measures vigorously and constructively. The safety of children was an issue raised forcefully by my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), for Sutton and Cheam, for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and for Beckenham and others. We are all agreed that child road safety is an important subject, on which I no more than touched in my opening speech.

Last year, more than 8,000 children were killed or seriously injured on our roads. I can put these statistics in a more human perspective. Road accidents are the biggest cause of accidental death among school children. One child in 15 is likely to be killed or seriously injured while still at school, so every child will know at least one

Column 908

classmate who has been involved in a serious road accident. All of us know of individual tragedies. These casualties are a senseless waste of young lives. They are not natural disasters. They are man made and there is much that we can do to stop them happening. That is why, two years ago, we launched a major child road safety initiative to provide a focus for the action of the many agencies, organisations and individuals that can contribute to reducing the number of children killed or injured on our roads.

At the simplest level, we can protect our children by buying them bright clothes so that they can be seen by motorists when they walk home from school in dark evenings. We can encourage them to wear cycle helmets. The campaign that we ran last year increased the sale of helmets fivefold, but I look forward to the day when no child is bought a bicycle without also being given a cycle helmet. We can do much by making sure that children always wear seat belts in cars, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said.

It is not enough to buy our children protective equipment. All motorists have to take personal responsibility for their safety. Children are most at risk as pedestrians in urban areas.

Mr. Morgan : I am not sure that I have understood. Is the Minister suggesting that the parent or relative buying the cycle is obliged to purchase a helmet, or is he suggesting that a helmet must be considered an essential part of any bicycle sale to a child, just as seat belts are a vital part of any car sale, and that one would not be able to buy a bike without a helmet ?

Mr. Carlisle : We do not follow that line. Parents should decide to buy a safety helmet when they buy a bicycle and all our persuasion and education is to that end.

Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham) rose

Mr. Carlisle : I shall not give way. My hon. Friend has not taken part in the debate.

With the patronage of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, last autumn we launched a major publicity campaign to persuade drivers to slow down when children are about. Stark statistics have been produced in the debate, but they are worth repeating. In a collision at 40 mph, there is an 85 per cent. chance that a child will die. At 20 mph, there is a 95 per cent. chance that he or she will survive. That is such an important message that we are maintaining the campaign this autumn for the second phase of television advertising, costing more than £2 million. In addition, as I said in my opening remarks, we are introducing highway engineering measures to make people slow down in residential areas.

Another way to improve child safety is to educate our children so that they are aware of the risk and of how to cope with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, we must keep up the pressure. There are many examples of how that can be done. We are taking action and we are piloting an educational package for pre-school children. Perhaps I should declare an interest here as I not only live in the eastern region, where the scheme is being piloted, but have a three-year-old son, so hon. Members can be sure that at least one child is being taken carefully through that programme.

Column 909

Some superb educational material has been developed during the project, and I pay tribute to those involved : the Transport Research Laboratory, which has helped to develop the material and is monitoring the scheme ; the seven county councils running the scheme ; and to General Accident Insurance Group, which provided generous financial support.

Ms. Ruddock : Perhaps the Minister is about to refer to my suggestion about the national curriculum. If the pilot that he is outlining were successful, could it find its way into the national curriculum?

Mr. Carlisle : I shall not go as far as the national curriculum, although we have all been deeply impressed by the hon. Lady's commitment to it. I also thank her for her kind words to me at the beginning of the debate.

We are developing a code of practice for children of school age to integrate road safety education into the national curriculum and we have developed teaching materials for use in secondary schools. It is not necessary for road safety to be treated as a curriculum subject in its own right. There are merits in its being seen by school children as an integral part of their lives and not as a subject that one studies before moving on to another. Road safety fits naturally into many of the core curriculum subjects. For example, when teaching mathematics, it is more valuable to use road safety statistics than those for wheat production in north America, which were used in my day. Vehicle stopping distances and impact energies can help to give real meaning to Newton's laws.

That programme is beginning to bear fruit. Provisional figures for last year showed that child road deaths fell by 9 per cent. and serious injuries by 13 per cent. The number of children killed or seriously injured on our roads is now more than 30 per cent. below the 1981-85 baseline, from which the target reduction was set, but we can and will do more. This is a long- term programme, involving the education of children, parents and motorists. I have every hope that it will deliver ever greater results. One of the messages that I have received loud and clear from this debate is that we must carry forward this programme successfully, with the support of both sides of the House. It is a subject of the keenest interest and the House has shown its determination to do better.

Traffic calming was a prevalent issue in the debate. Traffic calming is important not only in residential areas, so that people can have a better quality of life, but to reduce the accidents about which we have been talking, especially those involving children. Hon. Members raised concerns about the resources available for this programme. My hon. Friend the Members for Esher, for City of Chester and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) showed particular interest in that and other aspects of traffic calming, as did other right hon. and hon. Members.

Money is being made available for these important initiatives. In the current financial year, more than £42 million has been set aside for local safety schemes, an increase of 38 per cent. on last year. The combined 1991-92 and 1992-93 transport supplementary grant allocation for these safety schemes will allow local authorities to build about 7,700 local safety schemes nationally which, we estimate, will save about 170 lives and prevent more than 2,000 serious injurries and 9,000 other casualties in any year. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Esher that those funds can be spent on traffic-calming schemes,

Column 910

such as 20 mph zones, where they are intended to improve road safety. It is open to any authority to spend more on road safety than the sum allocated under the TSG settlement.

Ms. Ruddock : I pressed the Minister on that point in my speech. The statistics of what we expect to achieve through these measures are so impressive in terms of lives saved and serious accidents prevented that there must be a case for an increase in Government resources. As we all know, local authorities operate under tight financial regimes. Many are capped by the Government and the option is not always available for them to increase their own resources. If the Government's targets for road safety are to be met, surely this is one of the most efficacious ways of getting the work done.

Mr. Carlisle : Each local authority must be responsible for its own priorities within the money available to it. The resources available, which are ring-fenced for these purposes, have been increased this year by 30 per cent. on last year and substantial sums are being made available. We are co -ordinating with local authorities to see how these schemes, which are in their infancy and being developed through research, can be better used.

The Traffic Calming Act 1992, which has been much mentioned, provides for regulations to qualify the powers available to local authorities for such purposes. We are undertaking much research into the effectiveness of designs, such as humps. We are trying to develop humps that are more convenient for emergency vehicles. Chicanes, road narrowings and so on are also under consideration. Many Members spoke of how these measures could be of huge interest to their constituents. It is essential that we carry forward this work with great speed.

Drinking and driving was mentioned, but not as much as other subjects. It is interesting that all hon. Members agree that our efforts during the past few years have been bearing fruit. Education, combined with deterrents, is reducing substantially the number of people who are willing to risk the folly of driving after they have had too much to drink. That shows that we should persevere in other areas, such as child safety. It is clear from anti-drinking and driving campaigns that if we persevere with a policy and a theme we can get results.

This debate has been most useful for me, as it has allowed me to garner the views of many right hon. and hon. Members. We must not only persuade, educate, be thoughtful and approach the issue intelligently but undertake research, collaborate effectively with local authorities and reform the way in which we deal with those who speed. We need also to deter speeding and to punish--and we will punish, where that is essential as a necessary means of deterrence. We are all aiming at benefiting everyone in this country. We must ensure that accidents are reduced. We have already achieved some success, but none of us can be complacent. We all know that with effort, research and determination we can do even better.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Column 911

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 20th May, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill shall consist of twenty Members, including not fewer than twelve Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Hon. Members : Object.

Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill

Ordered,

That the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by the Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

House of Commons Commission

Ordered,

That Mr. Paul Channon be appointed a member of the House of Commons Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Column 912

Porous Asphalt

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

2.30 pm

Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield) : I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the noise and spray benefit of porous asphalt in motorway and road construction. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic on his appointment to that important post, and thank him for staying so late in the afternoon, having already initiated and replied to an important debate on road safety.

The starting point for my remarks is the problem in my constituency of increasing noise from motorways. I believe that there are more motorways running through my constituency than through that of any other right hon. or hon. Member--the M4, M25 and M40. Each section is among the busiest on those respective motorways. The stretch of M4 is that between Heathrow and Maidenhead ; the stretch of the M25 is that between two other motorways, where the traffic volume is already double the original estimate ; and the stretch of the M40 is that between the M25 and High Wycombe.

It is hardly surprising that the Department now proposes to widen all three motorways to four lanes in each direction. I cannot see that it would be sensible to object, although that will cause my constituents considerable disruption, especially in respect of the M40.

I am concerned about the Department's further proposal for collector and distributor roads to run alongside the M25. That would add a further eight lanes--some have suggested that the number might even be 16--to the eight that already exist. The intrusion into the green belt and the damage to my constituents' interests thus caused would be wholly unacceptable.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about the M25. Collector and distributor roads are of great concern in my constituency also.

Mr. Smith : I know that exactly the same damaging effects would be suffered by my hon. Friend's constituents.

Perhaps the most extreme example of the growing noise problem in my constituency is provided by the M40. When it opened 20 years ago, it was relatively quiet and perhaps even underused. With the extension of the M40 to Birmingham--which was not originally envisaged--traffic volumes have grown rapidly, as has the traffic mix. We now have many more heavy goods vehicles than we had only a few years ago and the noise is becoming intolerable.

The widening of the motorway offers my hon. Friend's Department an opportunity to examine further measures that can be introduced to deal with the noise, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend's predecessors for seeing representatives of the villages in my constituency and hearing at first hand their concerns and their ideas for tackling the problem.

How should we tackle noise from motorways and other roads? Basically, there can only be two possibilities ; one can either treat the symptoms or remove the cause of any given problem. If there is a genuine choice between the two, I favour trying to eliminate the cause of a problem. That is the difficulty with measures such as earth bunds, special fences and tunnels. We have many of those. I am certainly not suggesting that I do not favour them. They

Column 913

are absolutely essential and we shall need more of them in my constituency. But they do no more than treat the symptoms, and some of them are quite ineffective at surprisingly short distances from the carriageway. That is certainly true of fences. The sound hops over the top of the barrier and comes down within a relatively short distance on the other side. If one lives on the other side of a valley, a mile away from the motorway, the noise can come straight across and hit one in the face as it would if one were living only a few yards from the road.

I repeat that I am in favour of tacking the causes, and the main cause of noise on motorways is the interaction of tyres and road surface--although I dare say that there is some noise from engines. Anyone who has ever driven along a motorway and made the transition from a ribbed concrete surface to a black-top surface will know what I am talking about : there is an immediate reduction in the amount of noise thrown up from the road.

There is no doubt that some road surfaces are much noisier than others. The most noisy of all is concrete. I know that the Department does not accept that, but everyone I know believes it to be the case and common sense suggests to me that it is so. Ribbed concrete makes an awful lot of noise ; black top makes less noise ; and porous asphalt, which is the subject of the debate, makes considerably less noise than a conventional black-top surface.

Let me explain the advantages of porous asphalt, which I believe to be the answer to some of our noise problems. One advantage, which has nothing to do with noise, is that it would make an important contribution to improving road safety. The surface contains small holes so that, if it is raining hard, the water can go straight through, virtually eliminating spray. The Department has installed the two surfaces on opposite sides of a dual carriageway on the A38 in Derbyshire. I have seen a photograph of traffic travelling on both sides of that road in heavy rain. It is obvious that, on one side, the drivers can see practically nothing because of the amount of water that is being thrown up, while on the side with the porous asphalt surface the conditions are not too bad. That is an important fact. Surface water drains rapidly through the porous asphalt road surface.

From my point of view, the most important advantage of porous asphalt is that it significantly reduces noise, but it also has the important advantage of increasing skid resistance and reducing oncoming headlight dazzle in wet weather. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have driven along a motorway at night when it is raining hard and you will know that, after a time, one's eyes get very tired indeed. The porous asphalt surface reduces that damaging effect--another way in which it can contribute to improving road safety.

It is not as if the Department has not considered all those factors ; it has. What concerns me, however, is the slow progress that it has made. As long ago as 1981--11 years ago--the Transport and Road Research Laboratory produced a report which said :

"the noise from vehicles running on porous asphalt is less than that generated on conventional bituminous surfacings or on textured concrete surfacings. The average reductions in average vehicle noise were approximately 4 db(A) for light vehicles and 3 db(A) for heavy vehicles."

That may not sound very much, but the amount of noise at any particular moment is significant. That is confirmed by what was stated later in this report. It says :

Column 914

"These effects were approximately similar to halving the traffic flow or doubling the distance of the observer position from the traffic source. The noise benefits were not found to be dependent on the age of the surfacing. The low noise characteristics of the porous asphalt appeared related to the high acoustic absorption of the surfacing. Porous asphalt will lessen the incidence of splash' noise generated at the tyre-surface interface."

All those Transport and Road Research Laboratory conclusions confirm what I have said. It will come as no surprise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to hear that this surface is now widely used in Europe and elsewhere. France, Netherlands and Belgium lay over 1 million tonnes of asphalt a year. Substantial quantities are also being laid in Hong Kong. As one would expect, they have been laid in areas near to large conurbations.

Most regrettably, however, the position in the United Kingdom is different. No porous asphalt has been laid on a major trunk road or motorway for the past 20 years, apart from a trial section of 1.5 km laid on the A38 near Burton on Trent in 1984. The Department says that this material does not last, but the A38 road surface has lasted for eight years and I understand that it is still going strong. The cost is disputed. The Department says that this material costs more ; the manufacturers say that it costs less. That may have something to do with cost benefit and value for money, but when it comes to value for money we need to take into account, on the benefits side of that equation, the massive noise advantages of laying this road surface. I understand that the Department is also concerned about the overall strength of the surface. It may be that, due to the way that it is laid it is less strong at the surface, but we are talking only about a very thin layer at the top of a very deep section. If one cut a section through a motorway, one would find that its strength is to be found much lower down. The strength to take 38-tonne lorries is not found in the top three inches. We are debating only a very thin layer at the top of the section.

The Department also says that there are not sufficient quantities of the right kind of aggregate. I am advised, however, that that problem can be overcome. The Department also says that snow is a problem on this surface. That may be so, but we do not have snow all that frequently and, if we do, it should be dealt with quickly and not allowed to lie on the surface of the motorway. Normally it is cleared away quickly.

I have put forward my case as strongly as I can. I have seen a paper that was given as recently as 31 October 1991 to a BACMI seminar on this subject. The Department's representative, Mr. G. J. Bowskill, talked about pervious macadam and said :

"This material offers great potential for locations where traffic noise or spray is likely to be a problem, but it does have drawbacks over its long term performance as identified by the research." The time has come to have a few more trials with this material. There ought to be a few more trial areas, and I should like one to be located in my constituency.

The environmental consequences of road surfaces need to be taken more into account than they have in the past. I understand that we want to achieve the most cost-effective road construction. That must be the Department's primary objective and there must be good opportunities for achieving it at the moment, because tenders must be coming in well below previous estimates.

There is no reason why we should not have a road surface that will be acceptable to my constituents. I

Column 915

understand that the TRRL has now reported to the Department the successful results of the major trial of porous asphalt on the A38 Burton bypass in Staffordshire. BACMI suggests that there is "little reason for the DTp not to adopt Porous Asphalt and issue the guidance note"--

which has been promised--

"allowing greater use of the material."

That is what I want to see--greater use of the material, because the way to tackle motorway noise is through its cause. I am sure that we shall have to put up with noise and will never eliminate it. The problem will grow, so we need to tackle its cause and the symptoms. This would be a cost-effective way of doing so.

2.45 pm

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on securing this debate and on his interesting choice of topic. I shall deal with its wider applications and implications later. We are all concerned about reducing the adverse effects of road traffic on local residents. At the same time, we can agree that we all want to keep traffic moving smoothly on the road network. It is worth recording that although the trunk road and motorway network represents only 4 per cent. of the overall network, it still carries about 32 per cent. of all traffic and more than half of all commercial traffic. The reduction of noise and spray is therefore a valuable goal which I wish to pursue. I respect the aims of my hon. Friend in wishing to protect his constituents from the noise that those major roads around and through his constituency create. Porous asphalt is an open textured road surfacing material that permits surface water to drain through it rather than to remain on the surface. It was originally developed to reduce spray in wet weather, to improve visibility. As we discussed in the previous debate, the cause of accidents is often complex and there is little evidence to show that accidents are directly related to spray. Any spray reduction in marginal and wet weather improves drivers' visibility. Although that may appear to contribute to safety, we are not certain whether it does, because poor visibility in heavy rain also reduces vehicle speeds on conventional surfaces. In contrast, on porous asphalt drivers may travel faster.

Although initially spray is dramatically reduced by the use of porous asphalt, that benefit is reduced as the structure of the asphalt becomes clogged, preventing the rain from seeping through it. Consequently, any accident benefits from the use of porous asphalt are likely to be short lived.

By far the most important benefit of porous asphalt--I agree with my hon. Friend about this--was discovered during testing trials, when its ability to reduce noise by 4dB in dry conditions, and even more in wet, became apparent. As my hon. Friend said, that is the equivalent of halving the traffic flow and is achieved by noise on heavily used fast roads being absorbed into the pores of the material. This absorption of noise is only slightly reduced by aging and salting, unlike the spray reduction characteristic.

On the surface, if my hon. Friend will forgive the pun, porous asphalt seems to be a wonder mix. Regrettably, it has some disadvantages that we should consider in a

Column 916

balanced debate. It simply is not as durable as conventional surfaces and would therefore need more frequent maintenance. One particular problem is that once the surface starts to deteriorate, the rate of decline will be more rapid than with ordinary surfaces. That not only increases the cost of porous asphalt but results in more of those dreaded traffic cones, which are so hated by motorists and my hon. Friend's constituents. Porous asphalt has the disadvantage of being significantly more expensive and would force us to repair our motorways more frequently. The structural strength of the material is not quite as robust as conventional surfaces and, to compensate for that, the thickness of the material needs to be increased, pushing the costs up still further.

I am pleased to say, however, that our own research, together with that of the industry, is tackling this problem by trialling variations in the constituents and mix of materials. We hope that in a few years we shall have material which approaches the same life as conventional surfaces. Then things could be very different. As part of our effort to improve road safety, we have had a policy since 1988 of maintaining a minimum level of skidding resistance for our roads. In simple terms, skidding resistance is the roughness of the road necessary to stop vehicles slipping. This is proving very successful and as a result we have seen a reduction in accidents of about 6 per cent. To achieve this level of skidding resistance, we roll into the surface a high-quality aggregate. It is not possible simply to roll aggregates into porous asphalt--they have to be bound into the whole structure, significantly increasing the amount used. Aggregates with high skid resistance are in short supply in the United Kingdom and are therefore more expensive. Increased use of those aggregates would also mean more quarrying in environmentally sensitive areas and more haulage over greater distances. My hon. Friend disagrees with me about the availability of the material, but perhaps we can explore the issue. He also said today that this material is used in Europe and that we are being overcautious, but, equally, we must be cautious in making direct comparisons. European skidding resistance requirements are very much lower than in Britain and thus permit the use, on the continent, of cheaper and more plentiful aggregates. I am not prepared to compromise our safety requirements.

When weighing up the pros and cons of porous asphalt, two other aspects need to be considered. The first is winter maintenance. Because of its physical characteristics, ice tends to form earlier and clear later than with a conventional surface. I am told that that is because the cold is not conducted away so rapidly and when, as a result salt is applied, some will be lost in the open pores. That means that the amount of salt used and the frequency of spreading has to be increased, both of which cost more.

We also now know that salt can cause damage to bridges and structures as well as to adjacent vegetation. More salt used to de-ice the road means more saline solution running off into the surrounding areas, causing further environmental damage. Therefore, we all have an interest in reducing the total volume of salt which we put on our roads and which then spreads around the countryside. Our trials have also shown that porous asphalt surfaces break up more easily where heavy braking and turning takes place and for the material to function effectively, the

Column 917

integrity of the drainage paths through the material must be maintained. That cannot be guaranteed at present, especially in urban areas.

To sum up, we have in porous asphalt a material which provides significant noise reduction benefits as well as some spray reduction. At the same time, it does have some drawbacks--notably, its reduced strength and durability, greater cost initially and for future structural maintenance, and increased winter maintenance. There are also some environmental drawbacks which need to be balanced against the possible environmental benefits. It is a balance which I must strike when considering when it is sensible to use this product. I am satisfied that we now have a specification for porous asphalt, which will allow its use for some trunk road and motorway applications, but only where conditions are regarded as suitable and its use is cost effective. It is technically not yet suitable for universal application--for instance, where heavy braking or turning occurs, in urban situations where statutory undertakers need to have frequent access to their equipment and where there are heavy concentrations of commercial vehicles.

Even where the conditions are acceptable, it may still not be cost effective to use. We must remember that the increased costs will have to be found from the Department's existing budget and it will mean less to be spent on new construction and maintenance elsewhere.

Column 918

I am keen to use the material in the right place and I intend to allow a limited use of porous asphalt on trunk roads and motorways where the benefits can be shown to outweigh the drawbacks. My Department has produced a draft specification and advice note giving guidance on its use and I am asking it to proceed towards early notification to the European Commission for the necessary consultation in accordance with the notification directive. We will, at the same time, invite comments from the United Kingdom industry. Once those procedures are cleared, we can proceed to introduce porous asphalt on to our roads. This will be limited but will be a step in the right direction.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield for requesting a debate on this interesting subject. We all have a great interest in trying to reduce noise on our motorway system. In my three weeks in the Department I have come to the conclusion that we must try to do better in that regard, because noise is one of the great pollutants of people's lives. The problem can be seen not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but further up the M40 towards Birmingham, so he has raised a very useful subject.

I hope that we can press forward with our trials and find a way to make our motorways less noisy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Three o'clock.

Written Answers Section

Home Page