HC Deb 06 December 1972 vol 847 cc1629-42

8.48 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South)

When I made my application for an Adjournment debate I did so under the title of disclosure of motorway and principal road routes. This general question arises from the circumstances which have come to bear on the south-west corner of Northamptonshire in my constituency in connection with the proposed route of the M40, which is to link Southampton and Oxford through the Midlands to Birmingham. When it passes through Northamptonshire it is likely to affect the Aynho Ground agricultural area lying south of the village of that name. The route goes west of the village itself and also west of King's Sutton.

Both the Department and the Eastern Road Construction Unit have shown little regard for the public interest and requests for information, sheltering behind longstanding arrangements which date back to the mid-1930s.

My inquiries on the route started in March 1970 and I received a reply from the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) in a letter dated 17th March of that year. This carried the admission that the study being undertaken is naturally causing a good deal of speculation among the community, particularly where our Land Referencers have been making preliminary enquiries about land ownership and farm boundaries". Some 18 months later my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) in a letter dated 25th October 1971 said that it was hoped to be able to announce the Department's general intentions by the end of that year.

He went on to say, I am vey conscious of the unsettling effects of delays". Last July my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and I put down parliamentary Questions, the replies to which added nothing by way of further information, but in a letter to me dated 26th July last my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told me that every effort will be made to publish a preferred line for the motorway route as soon as possible in 1973". In a subsequent letter of 14th November, however, my hon. Friend now tells me that publication is unlikely to take place for another 12–15 months". Uncertainty will therefore have hung over owners and occupiers for some four years.

In the same letter my hon. Friend says, Given that we are working on a whole series of alternatives, we must, in order to avoid blighting the whole corridor, preserve confidentiality at this stage. Premature publication of an inevitably tentative series of proposals would have an indefensibly large blighting effect". But in fact no blighting effect is in evidence except where planning applications are concerned, and I feel that to plead blight is merely a cover up for the Department which, despite enlightened planning procedures in other fields, has doggedly preserved for itself dictatorial methods for road proposals. I maintain that it is entirely unreasonable that local communities should be deliberately kept in the dark on important road proposals and denied any influence in the decision taking procedures.

I in no way challenge the necessity for the road, which is to form part of the motorway system for the country as a whole. This view is, however, not shared by the Oxfordshire branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England who have been consistently refused the criteria upon which the Department's plans are based. I have had confirmation of this from the Secretary, Mr. W. Drew, and Mrs. Angus Maude, who is the chairman, and wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). The Northamptonshire branch, under the chairmanship of Captain G. H. Lowther and the presidency of Colonel Lancaster, the former Member for South Fylde, have similarly met a blank wall in their inquiries.

This attitude on behalf of the Department can be nothing more than a deliberate policy of denial of information which under existing arrangements faces local communities at the end of the day with a fait accompli and gives them only limited time in which to make their objections to a draft scheme.

I am informed by Mr. Drew of the Oxfordshire CPRE that only six weeks has been allowed in which objections may be lodged to the draft scheme for that section of the M40 from Umberslade to Warwick and, further, that plans and photographs illustrating the scheme are to be on public exhibition on only two days. I cannot but agree with the branch when it says it strongly suggests a complete indifference if not a contempt for public opinion". A letter drawing much the same conclusions appeared in The Times over the signature of Mr. Paul Sieghart on 10th November referring to a six-lane motorway variously known as Ringway 3 or M16, a route with which his firm was concerned in a consultancy capacity. The purpose of his letter was the questioning of, as he put it, the wisdom of preparing plans which would affect millions in a cosy conclave of central government officials who consult no one else except other officials from local authorities". Mr. Sieghart had said in an earlier letter in The Times, on 26th September, that when the secret decision is finally made public there is then little risk that any public inquiry will upset it since, even if the objectors can afford to call expert evidence, the experts will have had to do their work in the dark until the very last possible moment". These are matters of increasing public concern. I quote from The Times leader of 27th November: A duty should be laid on them to publish the results of surveys of alternatives as soon as they are completed. No interest which might be affected should be kept in ignorance of that fact. At no stage in the proceedings should the public be considered unfit to be told what is going on. The Sunday Telegraph of 12th November observed, The Department's rebuke to a Council in Essex for daring, to consult local people about the plans is arrogant and unpardonable". My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has made an interim announcement which appears to indicate a change of policy and I welcome it. In a report in The Times on 15th November he is quoted as having said, that he wished to consult with local authority associations on the possibility of giving the public earlier information about road-building schemes that may affect them This will undoubtedly include the CCA which has not departed from the view it took two years ago in that it favoured in all cases the earliest possible publication of road proposals consistent with the need for their being sufficiently definitive to permit "reasonably accurate representation" on a map.

I hope, therefore, that this morning we shall have an acceptable announcement from my hon. Friend which will do much to meet the widespread and firm objections to existing arrangements. Would my hon. Friend also deal with the question of availability of technical information upon which justification for new principle motorway routes rests, and may the House have his assurance that in future adequate information in every respect will be made available so that responsible objectors may have an opportunity of making their own assessment of Government proposals? In other words, I am asking that the Department shall be required to justify the need for a highway and the route proposed.

This information should be made available at an early stage. Having been got together at the public expense, there can be no reason for its sole use by the Department and being denied to objectors. It is also right that it should be open to challenge.

I turn briefly to the situation in the south-west corner of Northamptonshire where local residents are desperately concerned about the effects of a motorway through this delightful part of the county. For those who must, of necessity, be disturbed, I very much welcome the widened terms of compensation provided by the Land Compensation Bill which started its Committee stage on Tuesday. However, the sacrifice for those involved may in some cases be beyond price and this may well be so for some residents in Wales Street, Kings Sutton, who are apprehensive that the route will lie between the western edge of the village and the Cherwell River and railway.

The village as a whole would suffer untold damage if this were to be the case. The low-lying ground would require the highway to be raised on an embankment. The village is downwind and would be grievously affected by noise.

Little regard seems to have been had for local opinion with the singular exception of the Permanent Secretary, Sir James Jones, who wrote to Mrs. Coxon, a resident in Wales Street, on 18th October: We will not adopt the line between the village and the railway unless we feel that there are compelling reasons for doing so ". Mrs. Coxon was responsible for organising a petition addressed to me, containing the names of no fewer than 708 residents, which is in the following terms: In view of the announcement by the Department of the Environment that the extension of the M40 motorway will follow a route close to Kings Sutton, we entreat you to obtain an assurance from the Minister that this motorway will not come within half a mile of the village. I wish to hand this text to my hon. Friend, together with letters from 13 families living in Wales Street. I hope that the House will hear from my hon. Friend that the recommended route is one that will not lead to an unacceptable impact on residents and the amenities of the countryside.

9.0 a.m.

Mr. Joseph Hiley (Pudsey)

I never repeat what others have said, and on this occasion I find it particularly easy to stick to that rule because, with the change of a few names of villages, rivers and so on, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) expressed precisely the concern which faces me in my constituency. There has been more argument and concern as a result of the road proposals which have so far been made than I have experienced at any time in the 14 years I have been a Member of Parliament.

I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that, apart from not wanting to have a new road through their own back yard, many people are concerned about the necessity of having a motor road at all. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but I urge my hon. Friend that, when the time comes—I hope it will be soon—he should make out a case for the building of a new road, because so many people believe that these roads are not necessary today.

Will my hon. Friend, please, do something quickly? The problem of blight is already serious in my constituency, and it is only reasonable and fair that those who are closely involved should have some proper information at a very early date.

9.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) and for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) for raising a most important subject. Serious considerations have to be taken into account in the whole question of planning not only motorways but new roads generally.

We have made a number of improvements to the arrangements for publicising road proposals. Following the Highways Act 1971, the Department now gives much wider and more informative publicity at publication stage. The statement explaining the proposals goes into greater detail about the reasons for them, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South will appreciate when he has looked at the statements which come out at this stage. The statement describes in general terms the alternatives which have been considered, and gives the reasons for their rejection, but in such a way as to avoid blight. Additional public meetings and displays also are arranged at which the public may ask questions and discuss proposals. If an objector wishes to work up an alternative, the Department gives what factual information it has on any similar routes which have been investigated.

I assure my hon. Friends that it is my intention that we should be as helpful as we possibly can in the giving of this information. In the light of one or two things which I shall announce in a moment or two, I certainly give that undertaking.

Only this week, we published a booklet on what is known as "COBA", that is, cost-benefit analysis of road schemes, as a new arrangement to explain to people how the Department goes about making an economic assessment of road proposals. I have a copy of the booklet here. It is written in, I hope, language which is easy to understand, and it is a further part of the process of involving people so that they may understand when one talks about various economic rates of return and so on. We want people to understand what this whole business is about. I hope that the booklet will gain a wide circulation among those of the constituents of my hon. Friends who are affected by road schemes.

It is very understandable that people who believe that their homes may be affected by a new road, or who have a general interest in the area through which it may run, want to express their views on the line it should take early enough for them to be taken into account by the Department in formulating its proposals. The improvements to which I have referred, arising out of the 1971 Act, go some way towards meeting this point. But there is clearly a strong feeling—my hon. Friend has expressed it—that this is not early enough and that, by the time the proposals are published, the die is already cast.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries are very understanding of that view, and I am certainly am, too. Our policy so far has been to consult local authorities in confidence, both as representing local interests and as planning and highway authorities, before the Secretary of State decides what line to publish as his preferred route. It is after publication that the opportunity for full public discussion arises, and I assure the House that all the views expressed are fully taken into account before a final decision is made.

Doubts have nevertheless been expressed, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that this procedure does not suffice to give people the assurance that the views of those affected by proposals are properly represented and taken into account at an early enough stage.

The alternative would be to publish information on possible lines for public discussion at a much earlier stage than at present, but this could bring its problems. The publishing of proposals for a single line for a road has a blighting effect which makes it difficult or impossible for people who own houses in the line of the road to sell them at a fair price should they want to move. Publishing several alternatives might greatly extend this effect, possibly more than proportionately to the number of alterna- tives, because an important factor in our choice of preferred line is the number of dwellings to be destroyed.

There would also be a period of anxiety for many people who have no desire to move, or to have a new road running near them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said. For all except those on the route eventually adopted, this anxiety can often be largely avoided under the present system. I understand the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Besides the blight and anxiety there is the fact that additional consultation procedures will undoubtedly delay the construction of new roads. It is easy enough to say that a few months longer in preparation is worth it if it means a greater chance of getting the best solution, but it must not be forgotten that years of work already go into the preparation of road schemes, which bring with them much-needed benefits for the community, for example in the provision of bypasses and modern roads suitable for heavy lorry traffic. Throughout this period a very genuine effort is already made to achieve a solution which pays proper attention to personal and environmental factors as well as to the complex engineering problems which are often involved. An earnest of the Government's determination to attach even more importance to this aspect is given by its acceptance of the Urban Motorway Committee's report and by the new powers and duties embodied in the Land Compensation Bill now before Parliament.

I do not make these points in order to argue that there is no case for any changes but in order to demonstrate that there are very real and, I believe, reputable reasons in favour of the present system.

I must say to my hon. Friend that people have claimed and alleged—I hope that he was not one of them this morning—that the present system is one in which arrogant officials ruthlessly proceed regardless of the views of those most affected. The public interest does pull both ways in all these schemes.

I should like at this point to emphasise the importance that we attach to public inquiries. They frequently have a substantial effect on our proposals for the alignment of new roads or for the improvement of an existing road. Let me give just two recent examples of substantial modifications of our proposals in the light of public inquiries, and there are many others. One is the A64 Tad-caster bypass, where we announced in October that we are re-examining the route for the eastern half with the object of reducing the effect on residential property along its length. Another smaller example, but an important one, is the change in our proposals for strengthening Magdalene Bridge in Cambridge. Our original proposals for replacement of the decorated cast-iron bridge, which is a listed structure, by a concrete bridge were, as a result of the inspector's recommendations, reconsidered, and we have now agreed to the preservation of the existing bridge with a suitably reinforced internal structure.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

I am glad to hear those examples given. Has the Department any views upon recompensing those objectors who employ expensive counsel to oppose his departmental experts in respect of the legal fees which they incur?

Mr. Speed

The situation is that if people objecting at an inquiry in this way do obtain a substantial change in the proposals for their own individual properties, then my understanding is that they can have certain expenditure reimbursed. As a general rule at the moment expenses are not given to them. Costs are not awarded against objectors. I think that this is a slightly different matter. If I may proceed, some of the things I shall say will help my hon. Friend. I know of his anxieties.

These two examples show that we are prepared to change our proposals in the light of views expressed at a public inquiry, even when this involves additional cost, as both these schemes will. But I recognise the very genuine nature of the concern that has been expressed today and I believe it is right that we should examine very carefully how the procedures might be changed so that the public can participate in discussions on the line of the route, and that their views can be fully understood and taken into account in choosing which line should be developed in detail up to the stage at which the Department currently pub- lishes its proposals in the form of a draft statutory instrument.

Any new procedures would have to be devised very carefully so as to ensure effective consultation and participation while at the same time keeping to a minimum the adverse effects of blight, anxiety and delay. But my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that a change in our procedure must be made and, subject to the outcome of further studies, he intends to publish his proposals in a consultation paper in about a month's time and then to allow a period for comment and discussion—and I hope a fairly short period.

This would ensure that the question of earlier consultation itself could be the subject of proper public participation, and that the, to some extent, conflicting interests involved could be fully ventilated and properly reconciled. My right hon. and learned Friend is anxious that any new arrangements should not lead to rigid and formal procedures. It is important to ensure that there is positive local discussion of road proposals and that ordinary members of the public are not discouraged from participation in such discussion by undue formality in procedural arrangements.

So far I have dealt with the general issues involved in public participation in the early stages of road planning. I hope that I have said enough to show that action will be taken, and very soon. I shall now turn to their application in the case of the M40 Oxford—Birmingham motorway about which I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so clearly drawing attention. My hon. Friend has spoken of the anxieties of his constituents in South Northamptonshire about proposals being developed for the Waterstock-Warwick section of the intended extension of the M40.

As for the northern section, I gave a parliamentary Answer earlier today to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) in which I said that there will be a public inquiry into this section in mid-summer and that the Department is quite prepared to receive objections up to the date of the inquiry. People may attend the inquiry without having objected previously, so that this will mean about six to eight months for objections.

I hope that will in some part meet the points raised by my hon. Friends.

There was an announcement in April 1968 of a feasibility study to confirm the need for the new motorway. This made it clear that the main purposes of the new road were to provide a relief for the congestion likely to develop over the years on the M1 and also to relieve existing roads in the corridor between Oxford and the West Midlands. The study was also to give a broad determination of the best alignment. The results of the study were announced in July of this year when the scheme was taken into the trunk road preparation pool and a corridor east of Banbury and west of Leamington and Warwick was indicated. The announcement mentioned that a number of possible corridors had been considered, as well as the possibility of improving existing roads, but had been rejected in favour of a new road in a corridor starting well to the east of Cherwell Valley. This must have relieved the anxieties of residents in those areas although naturally intensifying those of residents within the broad corridor indicated.

Under current procedures the Department is now working on the preparation of proposals, for publication as a draft statutory order, for an exact line within the selected corridor. The House will appreciate that work on this and on other schemes at a similar stage must proceed and that decisions already taken must be acted upon, as there would otherwise be an intolerable hiatus in work on the road programme while the possibility of changed procedures is under discussion. It will, however, take several months of work before a draft scheme for the M40 could be prepared. Therefore if our new arrangements are ready in time, I would like to try them out as an experiment in the case of this section of the M40. This will probably be the first scheme on which we can try these proposals for early consultation of the public.

Meanwhile I should like to stress that on M40, as with all schemes dealt with under current procedures, no irrevocable decisions are being taken in advance of publication of proposals. Irrespective of any new consultation procedures, all objections and representations made to the published statutory proposals, together with the report of any inquiry which may be held, will be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend before he reaches any decision on this road.

I may add that at present the Department is still at the stage of examining alternative alignments. As an example of this, in the area of King's Sutton about which my hon. Friend wrote to me some months ago possible lines east and west of the railway and river are now being investigated. I hope it will be possible to explore these things more fully under the new arrangements,

I have, of course, confined myself to comments about trunk roads. Proposals for other roads are the responsibility of local highway authorities. We are particularly anxious that the views of local authorities should be taken into account in developing any new procedures and we are making special arrangements to consult the local authority associations.

My hon. Friend referred to my statement, reported in the Press.

There is one other aspect which I should like to mention in this context because I attach particular importance to it—that is, the advice available to people attending public inquiries.

The Department has now produced two helpful leaflets, one dealing with various aspects of the individual's rights when he is affected by a new trunk road proposal, and the other with compulsory purchase by the Secretary of State of property needed for trunk road schemes. It has seemed to me for some time that these could usefully be complemented by a guide to the procedure at public inquiries.

Inspectors generally go out of their way to explain the procedure and to put people at their ease, but I believe that there is a need to provide the man in the street with a leaflet which explains to him in simple language just what an inquiry is all about, what his rights are and how he can best present his case. Such a guide is being prepared. It might help to remove the rather awe-inspiring, court-room image which a public inquiry seems to have in many people's minds.

I hope I have said enough to show that we want participation to mean something here, and not be just a word that is bandied about. The Government are concerned that people should be aware of their rights and have an opportunity of influencing decisions which may affect them very considerably. I think that all the developments to which I have referred reflect that concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Nine o'clock a.m.