| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 60
Western IslesWestminster
Wigan
Wigtown
Winchester
Windsor and Maidenhead
Wirral
Woking
Wokingham
Wolverhampton
Woodspring
Worcester
Worthing
Wycombe
York
Denotes those authorities who operate a scheme to disregard War Disablement Pensions only.
Denotes those authorities who operate a scheme to disregard War Widows' Pensions only.
Denotes an authority which operates a scheme to disregard War Disablement Pensions and War Widows' Pensions for Housing Benefit rent rebates only.
Recycled Paper
Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of his Department's (a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.
Mr. Hague : The Department's policy is to use recycled paper where possible. The Department does not normally use recycled paper for press releases or written answers, because of cost and quality considerations. However, some replies to hon. Members from agency chief executives are on recycled paper, as are the great majority of letters signed by Ministers. We have also concentrated on ensuring that the paper we use is manufactured in the most environmentally friendly manner possible.
Pensions
Mr. Gunnell : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what account is taken of ability to pay in the time scale for recovery of money which has been overpaid in respect of pension provision ;
(2) what is the normal interval between a change occurring in an individual's benefit arrangements and the notification by the DSS to the superannuation fund providing a pension to that individual of that change ;
(3) how many individuals in the calendar years 1991, 1992 and 1993 were paid more than their overall pension entitlement as a result of the failure of the DSS to notify the superannuation funds providing them with a pension of the change in benefit payments made by the DSS.
Mr. Hague : The administration of state pensions is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available. Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. John Gunnell, dated 1 July 1994 :
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking (i) how many individuals in the calendar years 1991, 1992, and 1993 were paid more than their overall pension entitlement as a result of the failure of the DSS to notify the superannuation funds providing them with a pension of a change in benefit payments made by the DSS and (ii) what is the normal interval between a change occurring in an individuals benefit arrangements and the
Column 61
notification by the DSS to the Superannuation Fund providing a pension to that individual of that change and (iii) the repayment of money overpaid in respect of pension provision.The arrangements which exist for the DSS to send notifications apply only to public service occupational pension schemes. The notifications are sent to tell the schemes that they do not need to inflation-proof the guaranteed minimum portion of the occupational pension because the DSS is doing so.
When a change occurs in the rate of Widow's Benefit or State Retirement Pension payable to a public service occupational pensioner, any notification which needs to be sent to the pension scheme will be issued within one week of the change in rate having been entered onto the pensions computer.
The system is designed to send the notifications automatically. We do not, therefore, have details of the number of notifications which should have been sent but were not. We are aware, however, that there have been instances of delay and recent exercises have been undertaken to identify these cases and ensure that the appropriate notifications are sent.
Although late notification from DSS can cause an overpayment this would be of occupational pension and as such it would be for the scheme to decide if recovery should be effected and if so, how. This is not a matter over which the Department has any control. I hope you find this reply helpful.
NORTHERN IRELAND
Recycled Paper
Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of his Department's (a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.
Agriculture
Mr. Tipping : To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is (a) the amount of land in hectares in each county, (b) the number of farmers and (c) the cost of the five-year set-aside scheme in Northern Ireland in (i) 1993-94 and (ii) 1994-95 ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Ancram : In Northern Ireland, the amount of land in each county included in the five-year set-aside scheme and the number of participating farmers in each county are as follows :--
|Hectares|Farmers
------------------------------------------
Co Antrim |49.904 |7
Co Armagh |24.675 |3
Co Down |155.419 |13
Co Fermanagh |nil |-
Co Londonderry |138.906 |11
Co Tyrone |nil |-
The cost of the set-aside scheme in Northern Ireland in 1993-94 was £62,865, while the anticipated cost for 1994-95 is £33,364.
Mr. Tipping : To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the payment rates made per hectare under the arable area payments scheme for (a) cereals, (b) oilseeds, (c) proteins, (d) linseed, (e) set-aside and (f) the simplified scheme paid in (i) the first year and (ii) the second year of the scheme in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ancram : The payment rates per hectare in Northern Ireland for the first and second years of the scheme are set out below. The actual rates payable in 1994
Column 62
may be reduced if base areas are exceeded and the rate for oilseeds may be adjusted to reflect changes in the reference price.
|1992-93 |1993-94<3>
|£ |£
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Cereals |112 |[156]
(b) Oilseeds |379 |[421]
(c) Proteins |290 |[290]
(d) Linseed<1> |- |-
(e) Set-aside |201 |[247
Set-aside (reduced rate)<2> |- |[174]
(f) Simplified Scheme |112 |[156]
Notes:
<1> Linseed was not incorporated into the arable area payments
scheme until 1993-94. The payment rate for 1993-94 has not yet
been fixed.
<2> There is a reduced rate for voluntary set-aside in excess of
the applicant's cropped area.
<3> The figures in brackets are provisional.
TRANSPORT
Motorway Services
Ms Walley : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the guidelines for motorway services ; and what facilities he will require for (a) women and (b) men truck drivers.
Mr. Key : Since 1 April, responsibility for managing, maintaining and improving the national road network in England, including the provision of motorway service areas, has rested with the Highways Agency. As the information requested by the hon. Member relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 30 June 1994 :
Mr. Key has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about motorway service areas since this is now a matter for the Highways Agency.
Roads Circular 1/94, which set out the Department's policy on motorway service areas (MSAs) and specified the minimum requirements for MSAs signposted from the motorway, was published on 9 May. I enclose a copy. The minimum requirements include a specified number of lorry parking spaces, calculated on the basis of the motorway traffic flow.
Lorry drivers will also benefit from some of the other minimum requirements, such as the availability of 24 hours a day of toilets and fuel, and free access to MSAs for those carrying out emergency repairs to broken down vehicles. Whether to go beyond this and provide other facilities aimed specifically at either male or female lorry drivers is, however, a matter for individual MSA operators. Roads Circular 1/94 (Department of Transport)
Circular 34/94 (Welsh Office)
Joint Circular from the
Department of Transport
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 3EB
Welsh Office
Ty Glas Road
Llanishen
Cardiff CF4 5PL
Column 63
Dear SirMotorway service areas
1. Circular Roads 4/88 gives advice on the control of development on trunk roads. This Circular supplements that advice so far as the development of motorway service areas is concerned. Further advice on the considerations which local planning authorities should take into account when considering planning applications for service areas on motorways and trunk roads is given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 "Transport" (PPG13).
2. Government policy until 1992 was to promote the development of MSAs providing a standard range of minimum requirements on Department of Transport-owned sites at intervals of around thirty miles while operators in Wales have provided single sided sites on private land at intervals of around fifteen miles. A network of MSAs has been provided on this basis on most motorways though, in England, there are still routes with exceptional gaps in services.
3. In August 1992 the Government announced that in future the private sector should take the initiative in identifying and acquiring MSA sites and seeking planning consent from local planning authorities for these schemes as for any other development. 4. However, the Departments will continue to have interests in MSAs in relation to motorway safety and traffic management. They will wish to see a balance struck between, on the one hand, the necessary provision of opportunities for motorway travellers to stop and obtain essential services at reasonable intervals ; and on the other, the avoidance of unnecessary traffic movements on and off the motorway. This guidance is issued so that potential developers and local planning authorities may have regard to the Departments' policy accordingly.
Spacing
5. The Departments will generally not expect to provide signs or (in respect of sites not accessed from an existing motorway junction) to allow access to the motorway for any services development less than fifteen miles from the nearest existing MSA (or MSA site with planning consent and for which signing has been agreed). Exceptions to this minimum interval may be agreed, for example, where existing sites are a little less than thirty miles apart and additional services are proposed roughly half way between them. Where a new MSA is proposed less than fifteen miles from an existing MSA (or MSA site for which signing has been agreed), the Departments will consider the case for signing, but the shorter the gap the stronger the case for an exception to the normal fifteen mile interval will need to be. The Departments will not, in any event, expect to sign more than one additional site between any two existing "thirty mile" MSAs. 6. This minimum spacing between sites should not be taken to mean that the Departments see a need for MSAs every fifteen miles regardless of local circumstances. Their only prescriptive view is that, for safety and traffic management reasons, drivers should not have to travel for long distances without finding services on the motorway (whether accessed directly or via a junction). Intervals between existing services have not been much more than thirty miles. That remains a desirable general aim from the transport point of view. It cannot be a hard and fast rule, particularly in areas of planning restraint. Local planning authorities should take into account the need for and road safety benefits of MSAs ; and the greater the distance between existing facilities and a new proposal, the more weight should be placed on the needs of motorway users. Parking
7. MSAs contribute to road safety by allowing drivers regular opportunities to rest in the course of their journeys. These safety benefits will be lost unless measures are taken to ensure that all sites have sufficient parking capacity to cater for the demands placed on them by motorists needing only to stop and rest as well as those making use of other MSA facilities. In order to qualify for signing from the motorway, therefore, an MSA developer will be expected to demonstrate that he can provide parking for :--
Column 64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cars: |0.5 per cent. |of the light vehicle annual average daily traffic
|flow fifteen years after opening;
HGVs: |0.35 per cent. |of the heavy vehicle annual average daily
|traffic flow fifteen years after opening;
coaches: |0.1 per cent. |of the heavy vehicle annual average daily
|traffic flow fifteen years after opening;
8. Advice on predicted traffic flows is available from Regional Network Management Divisions of the Highways Agency of the Highways Directorate of the Welsh Office.
9. Developers need not necessarily provide the full fifteen year parking levels as soon as the site opens, but will be expected to build up to the final provision in suitable stages over the fifteen year period.
Other requirements
10. In addition to the parking quantities specified above, the Department will require MSA operators to provide from the outset at least a standard range of minimum facilities. MSAs which do not meet the minimum requirements will not be signed nor, in the case of sites not reached by way of an existing junction, will they be allowed to take access from the motorway. The minimum requirements are that MSA operators should ensure that :--
free short term parking for all types of vehicle, free toilets (in sufficient quantity to cater reasonably for the traffic flow on the motorway) and a picnic area are available, and fuel is on sale, 24 hours a day every day of the year ;
access is allowed for up to two hours for those carrying out emergency repairs to broken down vehicles ;
all facilities are available to disabled people ; and,
there is no sale or consumption of alcohol on the site. 11. Enforcement of these minimum standards will be achieved through a formal signs agreement between the relevant Department and the MSA operator under which signs from the motorway to the MSA will be permitted and maintained so long as the operator continues to meet the minimum requirements in full. Before entering into signs agreements the Departments will need to be satisfied that planning permission has been obtained, that the proposed MSA is capable of meeting all the minimum requirements and that it is acceptable in traffic, safety and spacing terms.
Access to motorways
12. While it will in future be for the private sector to initiate MSA proposals, the Department will maintain their strict policy of restricting access to the motorway to junctions with other roads, MSAs and maintenance compounds. They will not therefore agree to the provision of accesses to the motorway from private developments other than MSAs which meet the standard range of minimum requirements ; nor will they permit the development of activities within MSA sites which are unconnected with motorists' use of the road and which would therefore lead to the site becoming a destination in its own right. The Departments will be prepared where necessary to direct refusal of planning applications which would conflict with this principle. To ensure that this policy is maintained it is important that the Departmentss are kept informed of proposals affecting existing and proposed MSAs. Local planning authorities are therefore requested to consult the relevant Regional Network Management Divisions of the Highways Agency, or the Highways Directorate of the Welsh Office, wherever development is proposed of services facilities wholly or partly within 400 metres of the boundary of a motorway. They should consult similarly wherever development is proposed for an area exceeding 2 hectares which includes the provision of fuel and refreshments and lies within 1 kilometre of a motorway junction. 13. The Departments will also be concerned to ensure that MSAs do not come to be used as routes from the motorway through to other nearby developments ; that is, as all purpose motorway junctions. At sites accessed direct from the motorway, therefore, the Departments will be reluctant to agree to the provision of rear access roads connecting to the local road network. Where such accesses may be agreed, the Departments will expect to require developers to enter into arrangements to ensure their use is restricted to staff, deliveries and the emergency services. Other onward access will not be countenanced.
Column 65
14. In considering issues affecting the motorway itself, traffic flow and safety considerations are of great importance and good visibility is essential. Any access provided direct to a motorway would need to conform fully to the Departments' standards. At all MSAs, it will be particularly important to avoid the risk of congestion or slowing on the main carriageway. Advice on these aspects should be sought from the relevant Regional Network Management Division of the Highways Agency, or the Highways Directorate of the Welsh Office.15. The full cost of any access provided direct to a motorway, or direct to a trunk road at or near a motorway junction, including those elements of the works within the motorway or trunk road boundary, will fall to be met by the developer by means of an agreement with the Secretary of State under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. Advice on this is provided in Circular Roads 6/91 and Welsh Office Circular 65/91.
Election Campaigns
Mrs. Dunwoody : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on publishing statistics relating to budgetary restraint within the period of an election campaign ; and if he will make a statement on the conventions involved.
Mr. MacGregor : Guidance to officials stresses the need to ensure that statistics are presented in an objective and impartial manner and that care is taken on the timing and announcement of sensitive decisions. The convention is that Ministers, too, seek to defer announcing sensitive decisions during an election period.
Railtrack
Mr. Wilson : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of his officials attended a meeting with members of the Railtrack board on 9 June ; who else was present ; and what was discussed.
Mr. Freeman : Meetings between the Department and the Government companies and nationalised industries for which it is responsible are frequent, and mostly informal ; the substance of any discussions are confidential to the participants. It is not our practice to identify individual officials present at such meetings.
Column 66
Road-building Contracts
Ms Walley : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the 20 contractors who have received the largest share of motorway and trunk road contracts in the financial year April 1991 to April 1992, giving for each contractor the value of the contracts received.
Mr. Key : Since 1 April, responsibility for managing maintaining and improving the national road network in England has rested with the Highways Agency. As the information requested by the hon. Member relates to these responsibilities, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 30 June 1994 You put down a Parliamentary Question for answer by the Secretary of State for Transport asking him to list the 20 contractors who received the largest share of motorway and trunk road contracts in the financial year April 1991 to April 1992, giving for each contractor the value of the contracts received.
As the information you asked for concerns operational matters for which the Highways Agency is now responsible, as promised by the Minister, Robert Key, I am replying to your Question.
The information requested (but excluding contracts below £1m in value for which records are not currently held centrally) is set out in the attached tables.
List of top 20 contractors for financial year April 1991 to
April 1992
|£
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. Balfour Beatty Limited |95,813,750
2. Tarmac Construction Limited |95,395,774
3. John Laing Construction Limited |59,368,900
4. Tarmac Quarry Products Limited |38,209,542
5. Costain Civil Engineering Limited |37,534,578
6. Amey Construction Limited |23,656,803
7. Norwest Holst Construction Limited |21,684,567
8. Birse Construction Limited |21,040,596
9. A F Budge (Contractors) Limited |19,967,881
10. Associated Asphalt Limited |16,614,224
11. Fitzpatrick Contractors Limited |14,882,556
12. Lilley Construction Limited |12,175,042
13. Galliford (UK) Limited |10,767,262
14. Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited |10,719,283
15. Edmund Nuttall Limited |10,219,417
16. Eden Construction Limited |8,504,752
17. Miller Construction Limited |7,908,250
18. Colas Roads Limited |7,052,620
19. Henry Boot (Southern) Limited |7,042,636
20. Fairclough Civil Engineering Limited |6,923,494
Column 65
List of the 20 Contractors receiving the largest share of Motorway and Trunk Road Contracts in the Financial
Year April 1991 to April 1992
Contractor and |Award date |Award price (£)
Scheme name
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amey Construction Ltd.
A 34 Between A4130 Junction-A417 Overbridge |22 August 1991 |1,613,206.00
A421 Bicester Bypass |18 September 1991|3,904,118.00
A 41 Berkhamstead Bypass, Contract 4B |11 December 1991 |18,139,479.00
|-------
|Total |23,656,803.00
Associated Asphalt Ltd.
M5 Between Junctions 24-25-Huntworth-Blackbrook |3 April 1991 |730,869.00
A3 Reconstruction, Eshep Bypass |24 May 1991 |1,420,897.00
M25 Junctions 13-14 |5 August 1991 |3,559,223.00
M3 Junctions 4-5 Overlay, Frimley to Hook, Hampshire |14 August 1991 |2,236,246.00
A30 Pearces Hill to Cutteridge |9 October 1991 |2,470,273.00
M5 Junctions 24-25, Stage 7, Huntsworth-Blackbrook |28 October 1991 |545,488.00
A27 Crossbush, 2km East of Arundel |2 January 1992 |2,951,714.00
A27 Lewes Bypass Maintenance |14 January 1992 |1,529,660.00
A40 Oxford Northern Bypass, Banbury Road-Green LA |25 March 1992 |1,169,854.00
|-------
|Total |16,614,224.00
Balfour Beatty Ltd.
M62 Widening, Junctions 17-18, Manchester |17 April 1991 |3,752,243.00
M25 Junctions 23-25 |3 May 1991 |5,207,194.00
M61 Junctions 9-6, Southbound |28 June 1991 |2,412,919.00
M20 Junctions 5-8, Improvement |4 July 1991 |68,304,939.00
M1 Junctions 5-6A |13 August 1991 |1,936,854.00
A39 Waderbridge Bypass |27 September 1991|8,305,268.00
A38 Plympton Bypass (Northbound) |7 February 1992 |970,683.00
MI Junction 9-Southbound, Hertfordshire |13 March 1992 |3,188,861.00
M5 Cullompton-Hele Straight |28 March 1992 |1,234,789.00
|-------
|Total |95,813,750.00
Birse Construction Ltd.
M25 Sevenoaks-Godstone, Junctions 5-6, Clacket Lane |5 November 1991 |3,896,152.00
A20 Folkestone-Courtwood, Contract 2 (Viaduct) |5 December 1991 |11,550,041.00
A638 Doncaster, North Bridge Relief Road |21 February 1992 |5,594,403.00
|-------
|Total |21,040,596.00
Boot, Henry, (Southern) Ltd.
M1-AI Link, Thrapston-Brampton, Contract 8 |5 July 1991 |7,042,636.00
|-------
|Total |7,042,636.00
Budge, A. F. (Contractors) Ltd.
A41 Kings Langley Bypass, Contract 3 |19 June 1991 |19,967,881.00
|-------
|Total |19,967,881.00
Colas Roads Ltd.
M27 Between Junctions 9-10 |10 April 1991 |1,158,123.00
M27 Between Junctions 5-7 |19 June 1991 |868,773.00
M23 London-Crawley Junctions 9-10 |2 September 1991 |2,913,705.00
A40 Steppe House Farm to A4137, Reconstruction |13 December 1991 |2,112,019.00
|-------
|Total |7,052,620.00
Costain Civil Engineering Ltd.
A3 West of Milford, Carriageway Construction |4 October 1991 |7,889,074.00
A23 Warninglid Flyover to Sayers Common |9 October 1991 |15,685,563.00
A1 Apex Corner to Stirling Corner |14 October 1991 |2,920,040.00
A339 North of Basingstoke, Hampshire |2 January 1992 |8,597,625.00
M6 Junctions 9-10 Marker Posts 196/4-199/3 |5 March 1992 |2,442,270.00
|-------
|Total |37,534,578.00
Eden Construction Ltd.
A1 Barnsdale Bar to Red House |11 April 1991 |4,394,771.00
A1 (M) Blind Lane to Blackfell, Reconstruction |1 August 1991 |1,882,572.00
M6 Junctions 42-39, Southbound Carriageway |14 August 1991 |2,227,409.00
|-------
|Total |8,504,752.00
Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.
A27 South East of Westhampnett |19 February 1992 |6,923,494.00
|-------
|Total |6,923,494.00
Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.
A47 East Dereham to North Tuddenham |21 June 1991 |6,895,877.00
M1-A1 Link, Contract 5(N), A43 North of Kettering |26 November 1991 |3,752,253.00
A2 Whitfield to Guston, Contract 11 |13 March 1992 |1,097,862.00
M20 Junction 3 (M26)-Junction 4 (A228) |20 March 1992 |3,136,564.00
|-------
|Total |14,882,556.00
Galliford (U.K.) Ltd.
A5 Little Brickhill Bypass |28 June 1991 |5,837,410.00
M56 Junctions 10-11 |13 August 1991 |3,229,856.00
M1 Junctions 21-22 between Leicester Forest and Rathby |1 October 1991 |1,699,996.00
|-------
|Total |10,767,262.00
Laing, John, Construction Ltd.
M5 Widening, Junctions 6-8 |6 June 1991 |59,368,900.00
|-------
|Total |59,368,900.00
Lilley Construction Ltd.
A1 Blyth Bypass |14 August 1991 |1,412,961.00
A500 Potteries D Road between Etruria and Talke |3 October 1991 |1,045,105.00
A11 Trunk Road between Four Went Ways and Newmarket Bypass |27 February 1992 |9,716,976.00
|-------
|Total |12,175,042.00
McAlpine, Alfred, Construction Ltd.
A595 Egremont Bypass |10 July 1991 |6,666,666.00
A596 Wigton Bypass |10 July 1991 |4,052,617.00
|-------
|Total |10,719,283.00
Miller Construction Ltd.
A590 Dalton-in-Furness Bypass |11 November 1991 |7,908,250.00
|-------
|Total |7,908,250.00
Norwest Holst Construction Ltd.
A20 Courtwood-Dover, Contract 3 |14 May 1991 |21,684,567.00
|-------
|Total |21,684,567.00
Nuttall, Edmund, Ltd.
M6 Reconstruction at Junction 20-21A (widening) |30 April 1991 |1,812,266.00
A40(M) Westway, M41 Junction-Marylebone Flyover |20 August 1991 |2,612,555.00
A420 Kingston Bagpuize Bypass |31 January 1992 |4,296,787.00
M5 Oldbury Viaduct, R37 |6 March 1992 |1,497,809.00
|-------
|Total |10,219,417.00
Tarmac Construction Ltd.
M25 Kent Boundary to Marker Post 37/0 |18 April 1991 |3,524,959.00
M40 London-Oxford, Junctions 1-2, Buckinghamshire |21 May 1991 |6,610,000.00
M26 Between Junction 5-Junction 2A |29 August 1991 |3,124,576.00
A30 Okehampton-Launceston |29 August 1991 |26,809,215.00
A38 Swinfen Island to Cappers Lane |29 August 1991 |1,827,919.00
M4 Junction 12, Theale Interchange |3 September 1991 |1,516,553.00
M1-A1 Link, Thrapston-Brampton, Contract 9 |9 October 1991 |16,364,732.00
M1-A1 Link, Contracts 2 and 3, East of Naseby |19 November 1991 |35,617,820.00
|-------
|Total |95,395,774.00
Tarmac Quarry Products Ltd.
M61 Junctions 5 and 6 North West of Manchester |5 April 1991 |5,929,014.00
M181 Interchange with M180 to A18 |10 April 1991 |2,197,728.00
A1 Grantham Bypass, Lincolnshire (Gorse Lane-A52) |15 May 1991 |1,047,267.00
A1(M) Major maintenance, Wadworth |22 May 1991 |1,836,153.00
M180 Junctions 1-2 |5 June 1991 |1,142,648.00
A38 Little Eaton to Coxbench, North East of Derby |18 June 1991 |1,378,150.00
M11 Junctions 11-12 |26 June 1991 |1,383,682.00
M1 Junctions 41-43 |15 July 1991 |8,787,070.00
M6 Stafford Bypass |24 September 1991|3,150,544.00
M62 Junction 34 (Langham)-Junction 35 (Pollington) |1 October 1991 |1,840,781.00
A1(M) Doncaster Bypass-Harworth of Tickhill |25 November 1991 |1,566,762.00
M1 Junctions 38-39, 16 km South of Leeds |31 January 1992 |2,307,460.00
M55 Junction 3-Resurfacing, Contract No. M610 |7 February 1992 |1,362,954.00
M56 Junctions 3-4, South of Manchester |27 February 1992 |4,283,329.00
|-------
|Total |38,209,542.00
Traffic Flow Study
Mr. Butcher : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake a study of the traffic flow consequences in the United States of allowing car drivers to proceed through red lights in order to turn right at specified junctions provided there is no car approaching the green light at that junction and the junction is not displaying a no right turn red sign ; and if he will consider a further study of the traffic flow implications in the United Kingdom of allowing drivers in the United Kingdom to cross a red light to turn left in the equivalent circumstances.
Mr. Key : Differences in operating conditions between junctions in the United States and United Kingdom--particularly the use of vehicle- actuated signals in the United Kingdom--mean that, at best, only small improvements could be gained in junction efficiency by allowing drivers to turn left against a red light, and only at
Column 70
the risk of an increase in the number of accidents. We shall continue to monitor United States experience as it is reported.Motorway Use
Mr. Butcher : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to trends in lane discipline on motorways.
Mr. Key : Poor lane discipline on motoways is a long-standing problem. Last autumn I discussed it with representatives of the police, the motoring organisations, commercial interests and others. It was agreed that our policy on lane discipline should remain broadly the same.
Column 71
Public Bodies
Mr. Kilfoyle : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports ;
(2) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government ;
(3) if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals ; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them ;
(4) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament ; and if he will list them ;
(5) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory basis ; and if he will list them ;
(6) if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".
Mr. Norris : The Department of Transport has two active advisory non -departmental public bodies, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the Street Works Advisory Committee. Both committees are required to make annual reports to the Secretary of State. Neither is required to lay them before Parliament. There is no requirement for the Government to consult them on legislation proposals and they are not required to publish their advice. The DPTAC has a statutory basis under the Transport Act 1985. The SWAC is a non-statutory body.
Cycle Routes
Mrs. Roche : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce more cycle routes in (a) London and (b) the royal parks.
Mr. Norris : Responsibility for the provision of cycle routes in London rests primarily with the 33 London local authorities. The Government are supporting provision of the 1,000 mile cycle network in London which is being developed by the London Cycling Forum. Approximately a third of the network is in existence or in preparation. We are also supporting Sustrans' promotion of a "Thames cycle route" between Hampton Court and Dartford.
The royal parks are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
| Next Section
| Home Page |