§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]
§ 4.3 p.m.
§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley Cirencester and Tewkesbury)It is my good fortune to have the privilege to raise the subject of the continuation of the M5 motorway, and the particular aspect of the problem which I wish to debate is the delay in the acquisition of land for the next section southwards from Twyning in my constituency. I had the honour to raise this matter over four years ago on 6th December, 1962, in the Adjournment debate, when the delay was in putting the motorway in the programme at all and in starting the preliminary stages.
It is impossible to overestimate the growth since that time in the importance of getting this particular section of the motorway completed. The spokesman for the Ministry of Transport at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), was unable to give a date and was not quite as enthusiastic as I was about the importance of the motorway at that time. Since then there has been no doubt, on the Ministry's own recognition, that it is one of the most important sections of our motorway system, and they have done everything they can to hasten it forward and I have done everything possible to continue the pressure on the Ministry to make sure that this matter was not further delayed. The route has been known for many years. The county council sent the Ministry the centre line of the road in 1959. It was not until June, 1964, however, that the line was fixed and the order was made for the line of the motorway. At that time it was forecast that construction would start in April 1967—that is, next month. That was an improvement on what was originally hoped, but it was still too late a date for many of the inhabitants of Tewkesbury and elsewhere in my constituency to whom it vital that this road link should be completed.
The reason why this is so important is that all the traffic coming south from Birmingham has been funnelled on to the existing M5 as far as Twyning and then it is disgorged into the narrow streets of Tewkesbury, doing great damage to the 948 buildings, the amenity and the peace and charm of that ancient and beautiful town.
The side roads order for the motorway was published in April 1966, but it was not made until October. My first question to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is to ask why there was such an inordinate delay in making the side roads order—the Section 13 order—and why it took almost six months to do it. This was clearly one of the first places where the programme began to slip.
Early in November last year, a constituent told me that he had suddenly been approached to have his land acquired for the M5, that this was the first he had heard of it and that he had to be out by April. Since he was a farmer, he would have to find a new farm to which to move his stock and he would be faced with all the difficulties which farmers experience in moving. I was amazed that the Ministry had not even warned landowners along the route before October last year when it wished to start construction of the motorway in April. I do not suggest that the motorway should have been delayed. I only suggest that it is extraordinary that so little preparation was done as to start acquiring land so late.
I then put down a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary early in December last year. He replied even at that time that no land had so far been acquired but that some of the land was being negotiated for and it was expected that negotiations for the remainder would be opened soon. It is extraordinary that some of the land had not even been negotiated for in December when construction was scheduled to start in April.
I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary and asked for an explanation of the delay. He gave broadly two main reasons. One was that there were quite a number of amendments to the land plans which had to be made consequent upon small alterations to the design detail of the side roads and various drainage details of the motorway, and that as these small alterations were arising it had not been worth setting out to acquire the land beforehand.
That was a very bad excuse. Why not start the main negotiations for acquiring the land much earlier or at least warn people like farmers or householders that 949 they will have to move? No one would wish them to move precipitately or without having good opportunity to find an alternative place to which to go. Nobody wishes to reduce the period, which is short enough in all conscience, which people have, but if they are given definite notice—and the route for the motorway has been known for almost eight years—it seems extraordinary that they could not have been given much more firm and early notice that they would have to move even though the exact boundaries of the areas which the Ministry needs for the road were not at that time known.
The second reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary was that the road trespassed upon common rights. Indeed, there is a lot of common land in the area. The hon. Gentleman will know from his Department that considerable difficulties were experienced with the section of M5 as far as Twyning because of the common in that area.
I am certain that anyone could have told the Department that there would be difficulties about common rights when the second part from Twyning South was negotiated. This has been known about for years. It was quite extraordinary that in letters to me and to my constituents in December the Minister pleaded that it had just discovered that there were common rights which would need a Bill to be put through Parliament and that this would delay the start. The truth is that no preparation was done on the acquisition of land in anything like sufficient time. If the motorway start date is put back it will be for this reason and this reason alone.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what effect this will have on the completion. To be fair, it is not the start of the motorway which affects the traffic; it is, of course, the completion and its opening. From correspondence I have received it appears that he still believes that it will be possible to open the whole section south of Bristol by 1970. That will he two years later for the inhabitants of Tewkesbury who at one time expected to have the by-pass completed by 1968. The question must arise, how long will it be before Tewkesbury is by-passed effectively and the section just south of the city of Gloucester is completed and open to traffic?
My guess is that the work will not start until the latter part of this year 950 at the very earliest. As the road work, the earth shifting, will have to be done at a most unpropitious time—in the autumn—I would be surprised if the Tewkesbury to Gloucester section is completed by the end of 1970. I should be extremely pleased if the hon. Gentleman could say that this could be done. It is very important to reassure people in the area that they will get this by-pass within the not-too-distant future.
I also ask the hon. Gentleman to say when he thinks the first section will be opened, the section from Twyning to Gloucester. Other hon. Members doubtless will have great interest in the most southerly part of the motorway, but I believe it is the northerly section which is vital because of the damage which is being done to Tewkesbury, not only to its buildings but to the life of the town, the shops and the people who live there and because of the disappointment caused when the announcement was made that a start was being delayed because of failure to acquire the land. Because of that many feel that the town is being strangled by the appallingly heavy traffic going through the town ceaselessly night and day, at weekends and on weekdays, summer and winter alike.
Perhaps there are a few wider considerations which arise out of this incident. I do not want to go over the ground again as it was so thoroughly gone over last Friday. I have read the hon. Gentleman's speech with a great deal of interest and with much of it I have found sympathy. But from this experience it would be worth mentioning two points which seem important. We should start on the acquisition of land earlier even if we are able only to say to a farmer, "You will have to move although we cannot tell you exactly the boundaries of where we want to go." We must start by giving people much more notice than, as in this case, a farmer is given when he is told that he will have to move in six months although the Ministry has known for eight years what land the motorway would need.
Certainly, and this does not apply in particular to my constituents, more generous compensation would greatly help to speed the process of land acquisition. I am convinced by foreign experience that by paying more, perhaps 951 a little more than the land is worth, we can do much in the way of increasing the speed at which the process of planning can go.
Thirdly, the length of time to complete the proceedings is as a whole too long. However, that is not the point of this debate. The point of the debate is to plead with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that he should take to heart the lessons of the road and the delays which have occurred to it and do everything he can to speed up the construction, because it is of much greater significance than just the convenience to motorists or the time which will be saved by those who use the road. It is a matter almost of the health and welfare of Tewkesbury. I assure the hon. Gentleman that feeling on this matter runs extremely high and that he will be popular and welcome if he can bring forward the date of completion of this important motorway.
§ 4.16 p.m.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)Last Friday we were dealing with the general. The hon. Gentleman has brought me down to the particular in the case of M5. I understand his apprehensions and those of his constituents. I shall do my utmost to allay those apprehensions, because I recognise that a very difficult situation exists.
I know that traffic conditions in Tewkesbury are bad. Many people feel that the stopping of M5 short at Twyning in 1962 is a major, if not the principal, factor for these bad conditions, and that what should have been done was not to build the Ross Spur but to continue the M5 southwards.
The Ross Spur was built as part of a plan to improve connections between South Wales and the Midlands. Such roads as existed were steep, winding, narrow and unsuitable for heavy traffic. The need for this road was recognised as long ago as 1946 when the first blueprint of the future motorway network was drawn up, and the project received strong support in 1953 when the Lloyd Committee, set up to advise on ways of encouraging industrial development in South Wales, stressed the need for better roads in this area.
952 The Ross Spur is the essential link in the main route from Swansea along the Head of the Valleys Road from Strensham to the Midlands. Congestion in Tewkesbury does not arise solely from the stopping of M5 at Twyning. Tewkesbury is one of the main trunk roads between the Midlands and the South West and a large volume of traffic, including heavy lorries, is bound to pass through it until we manage to achieve a complete by-pass of Tewkesbury. The effect of a temporary stopping at Twyning was foreseen. but it is inevitable that motorways have to be built in sections. The first section of M5 was built to the junction with the Ross Spur to give the route into South Wales, and this point was a justifiable halting place for M5.
That is a very brief sketch to the background of the problem. I turn now to the future, which I hope will be more encouraging to the hon. Gentleman. The construction of M5 southwards from Twyning to Almondsbury and then beyond Bristol into Somerset is recognised as an important project. It forms part of the first 1,000-mile motorway network. We are determined that work will start as soon as the statutory processes can be completed and entry obtained on to the land needed for the roadworks. But I must say, as I said last Friday, that we are bound by the statutory processes, and some part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's criticisms lies in the fact that the laws at present about entering upon land for roadworks and the processes for scheming roadworks bind us to pursue the processes in a certain way.
In the case of the M5 south of Twyning, we encountered unforeseen difficulties. The draft scheme fixing the line of route of the M5 from Twyning to Almondsbury was made in June, 1964. The fixing of the line, however, is only the preliminary to a tremendous amount of detailed work before instructions can be given on the acquisition of land and before matters can be taken to the point of giving a contract for the starting of work.
The next step was a detailed soil survey for which a tender was let in December, 1964. Preliminary design proceeded on the basis of interim reports, but until this soil survey was completed the exact requirements for widths, slope of embankments, siting of overbridges, junctions and other things of that kind could not be 953 settled. The final soil survey report was received in January, 1966, and it revealed that on the Twyning-Almondsbury length soil conditions were generally poorer than had been anticipated. It was as a result of this and recent research on the stability of embankment slopes that the preliminary design of the motorway had to be amended. We had to provide for flatter slopes on embankments, for deeper cutting and a thicker pavement.
In addition to these design considerations, difficulties were also encountered over the location and design of certain junctions and the siting of a service area. The detail of the interchange at Eastington could not be finally worked out until late in 1966. Another preliminary which has to be undertaken is the making under the Highways Act of schemes and orders for the connecting roads between the motorway and the local road system.
I have mentioned these preliminary works which had to be gone into because, as the hon. Member will appreciate, the amount of land required cannot be settled until these design questions have been worked out in detail; and, until we know precisely what land we require, we cannot give instructions to the district valuer to open negotiations for acquisition. Moreover, work cannot begin until all the statutory processes have been completed. I told the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. DoddsParker) in February last year that work on the extension of the MS from Twyning was provisionally expected to start by the autumn of this year, depending on the time required to complete the statutory processes and the acquisition of land in order to complete the whole project in 1970.
It became apparent, however, early in 1966 that design difficulties made it unlikely that the statutory processes and land acquisition could be completed in time to give a start of work in the autumn of this year. Because we fully appreciate the need to complete the motorway as soon as possible and so, of course, among other things, to by-pass Tewkesbury, the construction programme was rearranged in order to avoid delaying completion beyond 1970. It was, therefore, decided to build first the Bredon Bridge and its embankments. The latter will have to cross the flood 954 plains of the Bredon Valley, and time must be allowed for settlement of these embankments before final surfacing is carried out. By starting this scheme before the main road works, settlement will be completed in time to allow the later main road works contracts to be completed in a period of two years.
Prior attention, therefore, was given to the orders required under the Highways Act to allow for alterations to side roads and footpaths affected by the Bredon Bridge scheme, and I am glad to say that these have been made. Land plans were at the same time prepared on a priority basis but, unfortunately, it was found that a number of alterations had to be made to these at a late stage, in such matters as areas of plots, revision of land requirement for drainage purposes and reciting of accesses.
These are not major matters, but such amendments must be made before instructions can be given to start land acquisition. As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, opening negotiations on incorrect detail in matters of this sort would not only be annoying and disturbing for landowners but would add in the long run to the time taken for the negotiations.
It was these last-minute amendments which prevented instructions being given until October, 1966, to the district valuer to open negotiations for the land required for the M5 as far as Tredington, which included that needed for the Bredon Bridge scheme, and for the relevant compulsory purchase order to be prepared and published. On the Bredon Bridge section, common rights over much of the land have to be acquired and this means that the compulsory purchase order when made will be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. Nevertheless, we hope that, as I have already told the hon. Member, the various preliminary stages will be satisfactorily completed to give a start of work on this scheme in June. As regards the statutory procedures for the remainder of the extension of the M5 southwards from Twyning, we hope to complete these in time for the contract to be let by the end of 1967, but I do not expect that construction will now start before spring, 1968. 955 We are at present consulting the local authorities and other statutory bodies affected by the proposals, and I hope that this process will be completed shortly. As soon as possible, the necessary schemes and orders under the Highways Act will be published, the district valuer will be instructed to begin land negotiations and the relevant compulsory purchase orders prepared and published.
It will be appreciated that, under the statutory processes which are laid down, we are compelled, in spite of any information which we have in advance, to follow the 39, or 31, steps which are frequently mentioned in the House. I should, perhaps, make clear that actual ownership of the land is not a prerequisite to the start of work on the scheme. If entry on the land is available either by agreement or by the use of powers under compulsory purchase orders, work can begin well before the district valuer has completed his negotiations and ownership of the land has passed to my right hon. Friend.
956 I well appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that the various difficulties which I have mentioned have prevented earlier instructions for the opening of land negotiations and that work has not already started on the extension of the M5 southwards from Twyning. I share his disappointment. But, if re-adjustment in the timetable has to be made in the course of following the statutory processes laid down by Parliament and the working out of the design by the engineer, this does not indicate any lack of purpose or drive on our part or that the project will be delayed in the long run.
I give the hon. Gentleman this assurance. We will make every effort to get work on the extension southwards from Twyning started as soon as possible, and we still aim to ensure that this development as far as Almondsbury will be completed in 1970.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.