---

Light Aircraft (Noise Pollution)

6. Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): What plans he has to reduce noise pollution from light recreational aircraft. [173498]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Light aircraft have to comply with an internationally agreed noise certification standard unless they were on the UK register before 1980. This standard was tightened for aircraft certificated after 1999. There are currently no plans for additional measures to reduce noise from light aircraft, although we expect aerodromes to set, and to enforce, appropriate rules to minimise noise nuisance.

Mr. Key : Does the Minister understand how sorry we feel for him, given this can of worms with which he must deal? My constituents are pleased to put up with the noise of fast jets and military helicopters five days a week, but for two days a week and particularly during the summer weather, their quality of life is diminished by light recreational aircraft. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country will have their quality of life diminished by the pilots of some 8,000 light aircraft and, of course, of those "lawnmowers" that take to the skies, and which take so long to get across them. As part of his big conversation, will he please start a debate on the balance between the right of pilots of light recreational aircraft to fly in our skies, and the right of the vast majority of our citizens to have peace and quiet?

Mr. McNulty: I am sympathetic to the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. In addition to the certification standard and the general noise standard, there are considerations in terms of the planning framework and the other frameworks that need to be taken into account. However, I shall look into the matter further and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

A14 Multi-modal Study

7. Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): If he will make a statement on the progress of the Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 multi-modal study. [173499]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The two major projects recommended by the multi-modal study are progressing as follows. As the hon. Gentleman will know, following the receipt of objections, the guided bus system being developed by Cambridgeshire county council is to be examined at a public inquiry, which begins on 28 September. A public exhibition of the options for the A14 is expected to begin in September, and will include exhibitions in Cambridge and Huntingdon. It is expected that an announcement on the preferred route will be made in spring 2005.

Mr. Djanogly: My understanding is that if every private vehicle travelling between Huntingdon and Cambridge were left at home and public transport were used instead, the traffic flow on the A14 between those locations would be reduced by only some 5 per cent. Can
 
18 May 2004 : Column 813
 
the Minister therefore confirm that, whatever the outcome of the public inquiry into the proposed guided bus system, the road improvement scheme will certainly stay in place? Moreover, could he please give a date for completion of the roadworks?

Mr. McNulty: I have outlined the two major projects emerging from the multi-modal study, both of which remain in the system and are being developed. The A14 improvements form part of the programme of targeted improvements, and one set of improvements is not dependent on another. The outcome of the inquiry depends somewhat on how the objections to the guided bus system are dealt with in the first instance, but as I said, the preferred route for the A14 will be announced in spring 2005.

Traffic (A34/A40)

8. Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): What forecasts he has received about traffic levels on the A34 and A40; and if he will make a statement. [173500]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): There are currently two studies looking at the A34 between the M40 and the south coast. Those are a strategic review of the Highways Agency's programme of works for the A34 and a scoping study by the regional planning body and Government office for the south-east to decide how to address the wider role of transport in the area. Average flows on the A34 in 2003 were approximately 34,000 vehicles each way. The hon. Gentleman will know that the A40 around Oxford is currently the responsibility of Oxfordshire county council.

Mr. Cameron : I am grateful for that answer, but will the Minister ensure that the review of the A34 that he mentioned includes the single carriageway stretch of the A40 between Witney and Oxford? Is he aware that that road has some of the worst jams in the south of England every morning and every evening? Is he further aware that the transport network review being carried out by Oxfordshire county council is predicting that traffic volumes on that stretch of road could increase by another 20 to 25 per cent? Does he understand that that could turn it into a giant car park, as a result of which the whole west Oxfordshire economy would grind to a halt? Given that the county council is now considering the option of widening the road, will he ensure that his Department stands ready to fund this much-needed project?

Mr. Jamieson: As has been pointed out to the hon. Gentleman in the past, the A34 is the responsibility of the Highways Agency and we are undertaking an appropriate study of that particular road to establish what improvements need to be made. I am also aware that Oxfordshire county council is undertaking a review of its own roads, but I am not as yet aware of any application to the Department for funding under local transport plans. The hon. Gentleman will know—he was told on a previous occasion—that earlier proposals for the dualling of the A40 were turned down by the Tory Government in 1994.
 
18 May 2004 : Column 814
 

Ormskirk Bypass

9. Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the case for the Ormskirk bypass. [173501]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): My hon. Friend will know that it is for Lancashire county council to determine priorities for local road building and to make bids for funding accordingly. I understand that the council proposes to develop and submit a bid for a bypass in 2005 as part of the Lancashire local transport plan. We will certainly consider any such bid on its merits.

Mr. Pickthall : Over the last 50 years it has become a tradition for roads Ministers—and, indeed, shadow roads Ministers—to appear in Ormskirk town centre to say that the congestion is terrible and that the town needs a bypass. Yet we still do not have it. I would hate the current roads Ministers to break that tradition, but I hope that they will turn up to cut the first turf of that much-needed bypass. Would my hon. Friend take it on himself to shake the county council a little to speed the matter up? As I said, we have been waiting for more than half a century.

Dr. Howells: I know that my hon. Friend has worked hard to persuade the local authorities to do something about the bypass. I can give him an undertaking that we will certainly contact Lancashire county council to see how quickly it is proceeding with the project.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) will know that the A56 village bypass in my constituency is joint second with his on the Lancashire county council list. I urge the Government to ensure that if the bypass in my constituency is built, it does not go along the line of the old railway and disused Colne to Skipton line and that the track bed is preserved. At some stage in the future, we want to be able to reopen that railway.

Dr. Howells: I will certainly take that valuable information into account.

Speed Cameras

10. Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): How many speed safety cameras have been removed in the past 12 months because they do not comply with the siting criteria. [173502]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The safety camera partnerships keep the continuing need for their cameras and the level of enforcement under review. Those enforcement issues are best determined locally in response to local developments and concerns. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noted as well as I have that, despite my constant reminders to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), at no fewer than five Question Times, we have not yet heard about the 4,000 cameras that he says were put in the wrong places.

Bob Russell: In view of the constant criticism of some newspaper editors and politicians who seemingly wish
 
18 May 2004 : Column 815
 
to aid and abet law-breakers, will the Minister confirm that, on an average day, 10 people are killed in road crashes and that excessive speed is a contributory factor in some of them? Does he believe that the views of those who want the speed cameras removed might change if they lost a member of their family in such a road crash?       

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman reminds us that nearly 10 people a day are killed on our roads. It is estimated that one third of those deaths, and many injuries, are caused by people travelling at inappropriate or excessive speeds. That is why we are determined that the safety camera partnerships should carry on their good work. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, on average there has been a reduction of 35 per cent. in the number of people killed or seriously injured at places where cameras are sited. Cameras are mainly sited in urban areas, where the number of deaths and injuries involving children is falling fastest. The hon. Member for Ashford will have to consider very carefully his policy of removing the cameras without justification, which could cause the numbers of children being killed or injured to rise again.

Mr. Ivan Henderson (Harwich) (Lab): One of the local papers in my area recently carried a story in which the Essex safety camera partnership was said to be

"effective . . . the best in the country and highly professional."

The item also quoted Rodney Bass, Essex county council's Tory highways cabinet member, as saying:

"The partnership is an extremely professional and constructive organisation."

Can my hon. Friend understand why anyone, including one of the Opposition Front-Bench team, should be calling for the partnership to be scrapped?

Mr. Jamieson: I have been wondering about that. There seems to be something of a split among Conservatives on this matter. Front-Bench spokesmen here say one thing, but many Conservative local authority leaders—not least Rodney Bass—tell us something else. Many have written to us, asking to relax the standards required for fitting the cameras, or saying how necessary the cameras are. Some openly disagree with Tory Members about the need for cameras in their areas. I think that this would be a good time for the hon. Member for Ashford and his colleagues to back off from their previous position, as it is clearly nonsensical. It would be good sense for everyone if we could reach some common accord on the issue of road safety.

Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): How many people have lost their driving licences in the past 12 months after accumulating 12 points as a result of speed cameras and other measures?

Mr. Jamieson: A substantial number of people will have lost their licences in that time because they will have accumulated 12 points. People who get caught and are given three or six penalty points must reflect carefully on their driving and the speed at which they do it. Some people may have lost their licences, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a large number of people are alive today, and have not been seriously injured, because of the cameras that are in place.
 
18 May 2004 : Column 816
 

---