---

17 Oct 2006 : Column 1137W—continued

Electronic Under-road Sensors

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines are in place to ensure the correct positioning of electronic under-road sensors in new road schemes. [94370]

Dr. Ladyman: A range of electronic sensors may be installed in new road schemes. The most common sensors installed under the road surface are inductive loop detectors. These provide traffic data and operate traffic signals and other traffic management systems such as MIDAS (Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling), the queue protection system that operates on some motorways. The guidelines for the provision of loop detectors are contained in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, HD20/05 “Detector Loops for Motorways” and the standards for their installation are contained within MCH 1540 “Specification for the Installation of Detector Loops on Motorways and All-Purpose Trunk Roads”. Both documents are available from the Highways Agency.

Foreign Registered Vehicles

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign-registered vehicles have been inspected in the South East International Transport Project during the 2006-07 financial year; how many prohibitions were issued as a result, broken down by type of offence; and how many prosecutions have resulted from those inspections during the current financial year. [94800]

Dr. Ladyman: The following tables shows the number of foreign-registered vehicles inspected and prohibitions issued during the South East pilot in the current financial year:

Roadworthiness offences
	Number
Heavy Goods Vehicles
Inspected	4,342
Prohibitions	2,073
Trailers
Inspected	4,200
Prohibitions	2,040

17 Oct 2006 : Column 1138W

Traffic enforcement offences
	Number
Drivers’ hours
Inspected	6,513
Prohibitions	1,418
Overloading
Inspected	1,921
Prohibitions	424

It is possible for one vehicle to have been inspected for a combination of roadworthiness, drivers hours and/or weight checks.

Prosecutions have not resulted from these activities because Vehicle and Operator Services Agency are unable to secure attendance of non-UK resident offenders in court, nor can any penalty given in their absence be enforced.

Currently, action VOSA can take against foreign haulers includes direction out of the country, notification of the offence to the appropriate authority within their member state for local redress or, in certain circumstances, vehicle impounding.

The Road Safety Bill, which is currently before Parliament, includes proposals for the introduction of deposits against penalties in relation to offences detected at the roadside.

Fuel Efficiency

Mr. Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department investigates the claims made by the promoters of fuel improvement products in relation to reductions in (a) fuel use and (b) emissions. [93902]

Gillian Merron: The Department for Transport published a “Good Practice Guide” on Fuel Saving Devices (Good Practice Guide 313) in February 2003. This guide, which is aimed primarily at fleet operators, gives general advice to potential purchasers on the testing of fuel saving devices and after-market fuel additives. The guide is available on the Freight Best Practice website (http://www.freightbestpractice.org.uk /pubsub.aspx?SectionID=1).

The Department encourages inventors and those marketing products claimed to deliver fuel or emissions savings to obtain test data from independent experts to support their claims. A fact sheet is available from the Department which advises inventors, or other interested parties, of reputable test laboratories that might be approached for assistance in verifying claims, of Trade Associations, and of possible sources of funding for innovative technologies.

Where false or unsustainable claims are made for a fuel treatment that is offered for sale, action against the advertiser would be a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority or Trading Standards.

Manchester Airport

Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what role the Department has in monitoring the compensation arrangements for homeowners affected by the operation of Manchester airport’s second runway; [93447]

17 Oct 2006 : Column 1139W

(2) whether he plans to reform the compensation arrangements for homeowners affected by the construction and operation of new runways at UK airports; [93448]

(3) what compensation arrangements are made for homeowners affected by the operation of new runways at UK airports; and if he will make a statement; [93449]

(4) what procedures exist for compensating individuals for the impact of (a) new road schemes and (b) new airport runways. [93451]

Gillian Merron: Applications for compensation in relation to Manchester Airport’s second runway are being considered in conformity with Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Manchester airport has been operating this scheme since 5 February 2002. The Government have no role in its implementation. Statutory blight and discretionary purchase powers also apply in the case of major road schemes.

“The Future of Air Transport” White Paper (2003) invited airport operators to bring forward their own non-statutory compensation schemes where new
17 Oct 2006 : Column 1140W
runways are supported in the White Paper or where land is safeguarded for new development. The scope and content of these schemes is a matter for the individual airports to determine.

The Government have no plans to change the current statutory compensation arrangements or bring generalised blight within the statutory framework.

Motorways

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the location is of each stretch of motorway which has speed restrictions in force on a 24-hour basis to protect the work force where the roadworks are not being carried out on a 24-hour basis. [94320]

Dr. Ladyman: There are no speed restrictions in place purely to protect the work force. The following table gives the location of speed restrictions which are currently in force, on motorways, on a 24-hour basis where works are not being carried out on a 24 hour basis.

24/7 speed restrictions where works are not 24/7
Motorway	Junction(s)	Location	Reason
M56 Weaver Viaduct	12 E and W/bound	Nr Frodsham, Cheshire	Speed restriction—40mph; all cameras ‘live’; operatives working dayshift only. The predominant reason for the speed limit at Weaver is that parapets are being removed/replaced in sections—there is Variogard (barriers) up resulting in narrow lanes, hence the speed limit restriction for safety. The workforce issue is therefore a secondary reason
A1(M)	8-7 N and S/bound	Stevenage	Speed restriction due to an incomplete safety barrier and opened excavations behind the barrier
M11	8 S/bound exit slip	Stanstead Airport	Speed restriction imposed due to the presence of narrow lanes through the works
M40	4 E and W/bound	Beaconsfield	Speed restriction imposed due to the presence of Variogard/cones and narrow lanes
M2	Junction 6-7	Salters Lane, Brockdale and Ashford Road, Faversham	Work involves bridge column strengthening. Open excavations and unprotected columns in place-traffic management needed at all times to protect the motorist
M4	18-19 E and W/bound	Bath—Bristol	Narrow lanes in place 24 hours. Open excavations with a temporary Varioguard barrier in place. Reduction of speed limit is needed where temporary barriers and narrow lanes are in place to protect the safety of the travelling public
M4	16-17 E and W/bound	Wootten Bassett—Chippenham	Narrow lanes (24 hours) and temporary Variogard barrier in place
M1 (Jct with M69)	21 (with M69 Junction)	Leicester	Work is taking place on the roundabout underneath the motorway junction-speed restriction of 50 mph is on M1 above to reduce speed of traffic entering slip road where speed is reduced to 30 mph for safety of travelling public and workforce
M6	12-13 N and S/bound	Staffordshire	Safety through contraflow
M1 widening junctions 6a to 10	8 to 10 northbound	Hemel to Luton	Narrow lanes, large number of HGVs, close proximity of junctions hence merge and diverge movements, exposed excavations, uneven surfaces, contraflow lane
	10 to 8 southbound	Luton to Hemel	As above
A1(M)	A1M/A1/A614 East of J32 of the M1	Blyth, Notts	Speed restriction due to build a new grade separated junction at Blyth. 50 mph restriction for safety of road user and workforce-who will often be working at night

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of accidents caused on stretches of motorway (a) which are unlit and (b) with lighting since 2000; and if he will make a statement. [94321]

Dr. Ladyman: The information requested is published in the annual publication “Road Casualties Great Britain”. Copies of this publication are available from the Libraries of the House.

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the M1 motorway was closed on 11 September near to junction 21; why a complete closure was deemed necessary in both directions; and by whom that decision was made. [94319]

Dr. Ladyman: The southbound carriageway of the M1 motorway was closed between Junctions 21 and 20 shortly after 07.35 hours on 11 September, as a result of a traffic accident between a heavy goods vehicle and
17 Oct 2006 : Column 1141W
a car. Both vehicles overturned, damaging the verge safety barriers and causing severe damage to the carriageway surface. In addition there was substantial oil spillage.

The southbound carriageway remained closed to allow for the removal of the vehicles and repair work to be carried out. The northbound carriageway was not closed at any stage.

The original estimated time for reopening was 18.00 hours but recovery and repair work progressed well and the closure was lifted at 16.43 hours.

The closure was instigated and subsequently lifted by the Highways Agency’s East Midlands Regional Control Centre following discussions with Highways Agency Traffic Officers on site.

Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the operation of the active traffic management and hard shoulder running on the M42. [94129]

Dr. Ladyman: Early indications from our monitoring are that hard shoulder running has increased capacity by 13 per cent. and significantly improved journey times without any adverse effect on safety. However, in order to obtain a statistically significant measure of the traffic impact of hard shoulder running, a period of at least 12 months of operation will be required. Due to
17 Oct 2006 : Column 1142W
the relatively low number of accidents that occur on motorways, at least three years of ‘after accident’ data will also be needed before an overall conclusion can be reached on the impact of hard shoulder running on safety.

Night Flights

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many night flights there were from (a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick, (c) Stansted and (d) Nottingham East Midlands airports in each of the last five years; and if he will designate Nottingham East Midlands Airport under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and put a night movements limit on that airport. [93222]

Gillian Merron: Night movements between 2330 and 0600 at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are controlled by a movements limit and a supplementary noise quota to encourage the use of quieter aircraft. The movements limits and noise quotas are set for a season, the seasons change with the clocks. There are also controls between 2300-2330 and 0600-0700 to prevent the noisiest aircraft from operating.

The number of movements against the limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports from winter 2000-01 to winter 2005-06 are shown in the following table.

Movements against limit 2330-0600 (movement limits in brackets( 1) )
	Gatwick	Heathrow	Stansted
Winter 2000-01	3,431 (5,250)	2,615 (2,550)	2,190 (5,000)
Summer 2001	10,890 (77,200)	2,939 (3,250)	5,035 (7,000)
Winter 2001-02	2,864 (5,250)	2,684 (2,550)	2,445 (5,000)
Summer 2002	9,358 (77,200)	2,937 (3,250)	5,297 (7,000)
Winter 2002-03	2,976 (5,250)	2,620 (2,550)	2,862 (5,000)
Summer 2003	8,978 (77,200)	2,899 (3,250)	4,832 (7,000)
Winter 2003-04	2,604 (5,250)	2,683 (2,550)	2,436 (5,000)
Summer 2004	7,370 (77,200)	2,993 (3,250)	5,390 (7,000)
Winter 2004-05	3,000 (5,250)	2,591 (2,550)	3,112(5,000)
Summer 2005	10,591 (77,200)	2,956 (3,250)	5,846 (7,000)
Winter 2005-06	3,257 (5,250)	2,669 (2,550)	—
(1) The movements limit in some seasons has been enhanced under the end of season flexibility rules whereby 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the previous season's movements limit can be carried forward if it has not been used.

---