HC Deb 30 October 1969 vol 790 cc501-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G.Perry.]

10.57 p.m

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Brierley Hill)

I am grateful to have been allocated some time by you, Mr. Speaker, to raise a subject on the Adjournment. As you know, I originally intended to raise an issue of development in my constituency but as the Staffordshire County Council has issued a writ against the Ministry of Housing on this issue, the matter is now sub judice. You very kindly said that if I could find another subject I could still have time for this Adjournment debate.

There is another subject which concerns my constituency vitally and it is the question of necessary improvements in the Lloyd Hill area on the A449. When I returned to this House in 1967 my first Parliamentary Question was about the need for improvement of this road. This matter has been dragging on for a considerable time, long before Ireturned to the House. I want to give a little of the background about this road. Lloyd Hill is a stretch of road a mile long on the main Wolverhampton to Stourbridge Road. On either side of Lloyd Hill there is a dual carriageway and the result is that Lloyd Hill becomes a bottleneck. It is also part of the link road between the M5 and M6 and locally it is known as "the missing link", rightly so.

In 1966 the A.A. said that this was probably the biggest road in Britain outside the Home Counties. In that year the Ministry of Transport issued figures showing that the road was overloaded by 480 Per cent. This I presume means that the volume of traffic using the road is 480 per cent. more than the road is capable of taking safely and comfortably. If I am wrong in that assumption no doubt the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will correct me when he replies to the debate. Over the year the bottleneck has created more and more diffuculties.

Whenever we have an accident on the Lloyd Hill stretch the result is that we have chaos and traffic jams. I know for a fact that in the mornings the milkman has to drive his milk float on the pavement because, driving at a slow speed on the road, he would create more chaos among motorists who were driving to work at Wolverhampton. I live in my constituency and use this road a great deal. I am well aware of the inconvenience for motorists using it and also of the inconvenience experienced by local residents who live on Lloyd Hill. These people have great difficulty during busy times in the day in getting their cars from their driveways into the road.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Bob Brown.]

Mr. Montgomery

This is the problem. Nobody has any doubts about the solution. We are all agreed that the need is to make Lloyd Hill a dual carriageway.

I have been doing a bit of research since I was told that I could raise this subject on the Adjournment. The account of the battle which has taken place so far makes rather sordid reading. To the best of my knowledge, the pressure to get these improvements made began in 1956 when it was estimated that they would cost about £150,000. In June, 1963, the then Minister of Transport advised that the scheme could not be included in the programme up to the financial year 1967–68. This news was greeted with great dismay by Stafford County Council which protested most vigorously to the Ministry against this decision. But still nothing was done about improving Lloyd Hill.

In January, 1966, the Stafford County Council wrote to the late Stephen Swingler stressing the urgency of the scheme and asking that a deputation should be received at the Ministry from the county council to put as forcefully as possible the case for including this scheme in the Estimates as soon as possible. For some unknown reason, the Ministry refused to accept a deputation.

In February, 1967, we were told that the scheme was included in a list of "preparation pool" schemes, whatever that may mean. This time the estimated cost had gone up to £386,000. In April, 1968, the late Mr. Swingler wrote to me stating that information was being collected on which a decision about the inclusion of the scheme in the firm programme would be made. By this time the estimated cost had risen to £416,000.

In May, 1968, the principal road programme of the Government was announced, and again Lloyd Hill was not included. This caused serious concern to Stafford County Council. Therefore, in June, 1968, it again requested the Ministry to receive a deputation so that the urgency of the scheme could be impressed on it. By this time the estimated cost had risen to £431,000.

In August, 1968, the Ministry informed the county council that a decision on the scheme was imminent and therefore suggested that the request for a deputation should be held in abeyance, and, because the county council felt that at last something would be done, it acceded to the Ministry's suggestion and deferred its request for a deputation.

However, in October, 1968, nothing further had been heard from the Ministry. Therefore, the county council again said that it would like a deputation to attend the Ministry to put its case. On 29th October, 1968, it received a letter from the Ministry confirming the programming of the scheme for the financial year 1969–70. This news was received with great joy in the area because people felt that at last something would be done.

The local newspaper, the Express and Star, devoted its leader column to the subject on 2nd November, 1968, when it said: For many moons we have been urging that something be done about the mile long stretch of road between Wolverhampton and Stour-bridge known as Lloyd-hill. It is to be widened and made into a dual carriageway as part of an improvement scheme which will cost half a million pounds. And it is money which will be well spent. At the present time this is an essential traffic link between M6 and M5, and even when the Warley Box Junction is completed, giving direct motorway access between those two roads, Lloyd-hill will still be carrying a vast volume of traffic. We would, however, utter a warning to all motorists. Rome was not built in a day. During the period that the work is being undertaken there will be even greater delays and there will be even greater inconveniences. We can imagine that our letter bag will receive the expression of much of this discontent. It is important, however, to remember that in order for things to become better they sometimes first have to become worse. This is going to be an example of that sort of thing. For our part we will not have much sympathy to spare for those who moan about the temporary inconvenience which is going to be caused while the work is in progress. You have been warned. I think that was a very fair leader, because it warned people that the work was going to be done and that while it was going to be done there was going to be a great deal of inconvenience, but the ultimate benefits for the area would be extremely worth while.

From the date of that leader, however, the plot has thickened. I have been assured by Staffordshire County Council that there has been no delay on its part and that the hold up has been due entirely to the fact that the Ministry has not given the county council the go ahead to get on with this work. On 2nd June of this year I was told by the Ministry that the necessary legal processes were under way with a view to work commencing early in 1970, and this was in accord with the pledge which was given that the work was to be done in the financial year 1969–70. Then suddenly, in July of this year, I was told that the Ministry's aim was to start the work on the improvements in June, 1970—in other words, not the financial year 1969–70 as promised. But even June, 1970, was not a firm date, because there was a proviso that a great deal depended upon the progress with land acquisition procedures which are about to begin. This was in July of this year. I should like to know how that is compatible with the statement given to me by the Ministry of Transport on 2nd June. The latest information I have been given by Staffordshire County Council is that it is expecting work to start on 1st August, 1970. So it would seem that the date for this very necessary improvement to take place goes further and further back in the calendar.

Therefore, I am most grateful to have been allowed time to raise the subject on the Adjournment tonight and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give me some assurances. I should like to hear from him his explanation of the delays which have taken place and particularly why this work was not included in the 1969–70 programme as promised. I should be very grateful if also he could give me some idea of the estimated cost of this scheme now. Thirdly, I should like to know if we can have a firm date from him for the commencement of this work, because I can assure him that the people who use this road are sick to death of promises and that what they want is action.

10.8 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to the need for rapid progress with the proposed improvement to the A449 trunk road at Lloyd Hill.

We have of course been aware for many years of the mounting congestion on this stretch of the busy trunk road between Wolverhampton and Kidderminster. As the hon. Member has mentioned, a very heavy degree of overloading was established back in 1966. But the road is by no means unique in this respect and for a long while a start on the processes leading to the desired improvement had to defer to the even more pressing claim of other schemes for trunk road improvement and construction.

The turning point came in February 1967, when we were able to announce the inclusion of the scheme for the provision of dual carriageways in the preparation pool, with a view to its inclusion in the firm programme of trunk road schemes for the early 1970s.

A great deal of work is involved in preparing a scheme in sufficient detail for its cost to be accurately assessed and set against the expected benefits, for the purpose of reaching an informed decision on its appropriate place in the firm programme. However, partly because much thought had already been devoted to this particular improvement by our agent authority, the county council, we were enabled to complete this stage in good time, and the continued increase in congestion led us to conclude that the scheme should be programmed for the earliest possible year, which then appeared to be 1969–70.

As the hon. Member is aware we have not found it possible to maintain the promise of that decision, and he can take my assurance that it gives me no pleasure to have to say that we cannot keep the promise of a starting date for a road scheme because, if we cannot keep the promise to start, the completion of the scheme must accordingly be delayed. It had in any event been our expectation that a start could not be made until towards the end of the financial year, during the early part of 1970. But despite our best efforts, we realised in July that it would not be possible to complete all the necessary steps in terms of detailed design, statutory procedures and land acquisition sufficiently quickly.

This scheme did not require an order under section 7 of the Highways Act 1959, establishing a new trunk road, since the improvement was to follow the line of the existing road. So in this way we could save some time; but an order under Section 9 of the Act was needed to authorise the necessary side road alteration. This was published in draft in January 1969. The statutory objection period was three months and during this period two objections were received. It was possible in due course to secure their withdrawal but the order could not in the event be duly made until September.

A start had already been made on the necessary negotiations for the acquisition of the land required for the scheme, and on the preparation of a draft compulsory purchase order. This draft order has not yet been published and is at present being held up while certain drainage difficulties which might require the inclusion of some additional land are being ironed out; this is an example of the way in which problems of detail which cannot be foreseen at the more general preliminary planning stages may impose restraint on the achievement of target dates. This is what has happened in this case. We hope to settle this point soon, but the indications we have already received are that objections to the compulsory purchase order are likely to be made and that a public inquiry may well be necessary. These are things over which my Department and the county council have no control.

The hon. Member will appreciate that, whatever may be the urgency of the improvement scheme, those whose land is required for its execution have statutory rights of objection; and if they decide to exercise these rights, their objections will have to be carefully considered, together with the report of the inspector if an inquiry is held, by my right hon. Friend before he reaches his decision. It is right and proper that people who exercise their statutory rights should be given full consideration.

While we shall certainly press on with all speed to the publication of the draft order, it is not possible at this stage to indicate with any precision when or in what form the decision on it will be made, since that depends to a large extent on the volume and the force of any objections which may be received.

There is also the question of the re-housing of certain people who would be displaced from their present homes by the scheme. With the best will in the world it takes time for them to make the arrangements, especially where it may be necessary for new accommodation to be built in place of that which would need to be demolished if the scheme is to go ahead as planned. I understand there is one case where an application for outline planning permission to rebuild a house has just been submitted. Therefore I hope the hon. Member will understand our difficulties. It is fair and reasonable that people who are being displaced should be given sufficient time to find themselves alternative accommodation, even if it means building a new house.

Mr. Montgomery

I agree that the people have their statutory rights, but we have known this all along. I am objecting to the fact that the Ministry gave a definite undertaking that this was to take place in the financial year 1969–70. Surely they were aware of these difficulties then. Why did they give a firm date?

Mr. Brown

I was endeavouring to explain why we had not been able to keep to the firm date which we gave. From time to time we are pressed by hon. Members to give a reasonable indication of the time at which a scheme will start, and clearly we want to give this type of information if we can possibly do so. But when extraneous circumstances arise over which we have no control, it is hardly reasonable that when people are pressing for a date we should be "clobbered" for giving a date. That is what has happened in this case. Therefore, I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to undertake any commitment to begin work on the scheme by a specific date. In view of what has happened, he will appreciate my point.

We are fully aware of the urgency of the matter and we will do all we can, subject to the proper observance of the statutory procedures, to make the quickest possible progress on the scheme. It may be helpful to point out that the completion of the link between the M5 and M6 motorways, scheduled for next summer, will provide a welcome measure of relief to the A449, which is at present used as one of the connecting routes between these motorways.

On the subject of accidents, although every accident is to be deplored, I am pleased to note that the records on this stretch of road is not as serious as might have been expected. Since 1st June, 1966, I am delighted to say that there has been no fatal injuries; but unfortunately there have been two serious injuries and 14 slight ones. I would agree with the hon. Member that these 16 injuries are 16 injuries too many. That is why we want to press on with the matter as early as possible, and the factors which I have mentioned do not in any sense detract from the urgency with which we regard this scheme, and I repeat that we shall press ahead with all possible speed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Ten o'clock.