COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 18 June 1991)

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36.
When this Bill was before your Lordships, I assured the House that any conceivable special road scheme would be subjected to environmental assessment, and my right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Freeman, gave similar assurances in Committee in another place. But they were not entirely convincing. These new clauses, one for England and Wales, one for Scotland, should put the matter beyond doubt.
All road construction schemes fall within the EC directive, either in Annex I or Annex II. For those in Annex I, environmental assessment is mandatory. Schemes in Annex II must have an environmental assessment if the member state considers their characteristics require it. In this country, this has been interpreted very broadly with regard to all-purpose trunk roads. This amendment means that all special road schemes must be regarded as having the requisite characteristics, simply by virtue of being special roads. And all toll roads provided under the Bill will be special roads.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I thank the Minister for going a long way in the direction which 74 we suggested. Indeed, the present proposal before the House is an important move on his part and he has argued the case for it.
I have a number of serious anxieties about the environmental implications of this part of the Bill and, indeed, about Part II. The Government have refused to impose a general environmental duty on concessionaires. There are continuing anxieties about the nature of the appraisal and assessment in terms of the procedures which are required for special loads.
There is no provision on the face of the Bill for ensuring that the construction and operation of concession loads does not undermine broader national, regional and local environmental, transport and land use policies. The Minister must be aware that the key anxieties which have been expressed relate to the fact that environmental issues do not have to be addressed statutorily until the examination of a special road scheme once a preferred concessionaire and route have been identified.
Ministers and the department have given assurances. For example, in Committee in another place Mr. Roger Freeman said that environmental considerations started from the word go, and, in response to representations from the West Midlands districts, the transport department said that wider economic traffic and environmental effects of any tender submissions in relation to the western orbital route would be taken into account in determining the winner.
Given the strength of those assurances, it is difficult to understand why the Government are not prepared to write the appropriate procedures on the face of the Bill. That is the only point I wish to make.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, I was one of those at Committee stage who expressed difficulty with two matters connected with Amendment No. 16. The first was the lack of a specific requirement to have an environmental assessment in relation to special roads, although it was clear that there had to be one in relation to trunk roads. The second problem was the inaccessibility of the law, the difficulty of finding it and the difficulty of correlating the various legal provisions, including that contained in an EC directive on environmental assessment.
I wish to thank the Government for the trouble that they have taken over the matter. On the question of the unsatisfactory nature of the presentation of the law—leaving aside its substance—my noble friend Lord Brabazon said that he would invite the attention of the Secretary of State to the views expressed in this House on the position. I was asked to see the Secretary of State, at which time I pointed out the appalling confusion that exists in the law. He wrote to me at great length, but I shall not trouble your Lordships with the content of his letter. He pointed out that if we were to simplify the position in the Bill, it would make the Bill twice as long as it already is. It is a branch of the law where Parliament, over the years and in spite of the consolidation contained in the Highways Act 1980, by building first on one piece of legislation and then another, has created a voluminous amount of statute law. Furthermore, regulations also have to be 75 read in order to obtain the complete picture. The Minister gave me an assurance that nothing more could be done to clarify the matter at this stage. I must accept that. But it is an advantage to us to have Amendment No. 16 on environmental assessment.
I want to say a few words about what an environmental assessment should, and I hope will, contain in relation to special roads, trunk roads and highways in general.
I am advised that there are two major failings at the moment. The first is a lack of any comparison between the different alternative routes when quite clearly such alternatives already exist or should exist. I hope that in the future environmental assessments will state the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative routes. Secondly, the wider effects of building a road are not always considered. For example, we know that new roads stimulate development pressures, especially around road junctions; that faster roads lead to increased journey lengths and more frequent trips; and that very often, because of the greater speed—or in some cases the lower speed—the contribution of road vehicles to noxious gas emissions is a factor that should be taken into consideration.
I cannot expect my noble friend to give firm undertakings at this stage regarding the contents of the environmental assessments along the lines I mentioned. However, I have a duty to place these matters on record because they have caused anxiety. Having done so, I acknowledge the trouble taken by the Secretary of State, my noble friend and Mr. Freeman and express thanks for all that has been done.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for those words. I well recall the debates that we had what seems to be a long time ago, when we discussed the Bill in Committee in this House. I should like to say a few words which I hope will assist both the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Renton.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was asking why the environmental assessment does not occur at an earlier stage of the process. The purpose of an environmental assessment is to inform the decision on authorising a scheme not the decision to put a scheme into a programme, which is only a proposal. It is not true that once a road is in the programme it stays in. We recently removed the M.23 extension northward into London and the western environmental improvement route in west London from the programme largely for environmental considerations.
The formal environmental statement required with the publication of draft orders is the culmination of a long process in road design. Only at this stage can all relevant factors be known and properly weighed up. Of course we start looking at environmental impact much earlier in deciding whether to build a road at all and, in response to my noble friend Lord Renton, where it should go. In considering private sector bids, environmental issues will be important factors. Environmental assessment is a developing art. We are always looking at ways of improving methods. That goes much wider than the new roads provided under the Bill. The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk 76 Road Assessment will be reporting later this year on valuing the environment. Ministers promised wide consultation on any procedural changes they may recommend.
With regard to not imposing any environmental duty on concessionaires in the Bill, a duty exists in Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968—referred to in previous debates both in this House and in another place. It was argued that the section was inadequate for the purposes of this Bill because it applies only to public sector bodies. But there will be public sector bodies, central or local government, responsible as highway authorities for all the roads provided under the Bill. Their duty does not cease simply because there is another player, the concessionaire acting on their behalf. Therefore I do not believe that there is a need for an extension of that duty.
A specific provision requiring environmental assessment for special road schemes is of much greater value than a vague general duty. With those remarks I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.