HC Deb 29 June 1972 vol 839 cc1839-48

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Langstone)

I always try to apply stringent tests to occasions like this when essentially local or parochial affairs are to be brought to the attention of the House of Commons, even when it is represented by so few people as there are in the Chamber this evening. There are occasion when the tests are passed, and the subject of the decision, or what is likely to be the decision, to provide a bypass for Emsworth passes these stringent tests.

A leading article in the Portsmouth Evening News discussed this subject and said: It affects every community which may find itself involved with a road project devised by engineers who can, it appears, depend upon Department for the Environment support, however weighty the arguments put forward by local residents…Emsworth, and any other town similarly threatened may now wonder whether public inquiries serve such practical purpose. Before dealing with the merits of this case, I will state a few of the essentials. Emsworth is a small most picturesque and ancient town comprising 9,000 people. It lies within an area of outstanding natural beauty on the fringes of Chichester harbour. It is a proud and articulate community, to the extent, the House may be interested to know, that even its fishermen have pleaded their cause before the Privy Council, a very unusual achievement.

The problem which the community faces is the simple but important one of traffic. I may summarise it by saying that in August, 1969, there moved through the centre of this small community—to use a modern term which I have never come across until recently—22,000 private car units a day; that is, about 20,000 vehicles a day. Estimates have been made that in 1974 this will rise to 28,000 and in 1979 to 34,000. It is equally estimated that at present the capacity of this main road—a section of the A27—is a mere 6.5,000 private car units a day.

The community has been aware of this problem for some 30 years, during which time the centre of the village has suffered trunk road blight in that a large area has not been developed because, these decisions having been placed in cold storage, nothing could be done with the land. The two schemes to deal with the problem—the inner bypass and the outer bypass—were first proposed in 1934 and in 1938, the first being a very short scheme of about one-third of a mile, and the second a somewhat longer and more ambitious programme involving a road going right round the town, a distance of eight miles.

What an astonishing reflection on the speed of the administrative process! The outer bypass, which is now estimated to cost about £8 million, could have been built in 1938 for the present cost of the inner bypass, which will cost at the most £1 million if allowance is made for a large number of factors. Virtually nothing whatever happened between that date and 1959, 21 years later, when a series of detailed proposals were published. Again, very little happened until 1965, when draft orders were laid, and 1966, when plans and proposals of a more detailed kind were made public. Following this, in 1967 the Emsworth short bypass objection committee was formed; 500 people attended the meeting and over 1,970 signatures were collected in protest against the short bypass scheme.

The next point which is of interest is that at that stage I personally became involved and discussed the matter with the present Secretary of State, who wrote to a constituent of mine as follows: I have discussed this with your M.P.…and have informed him that I will certainly support him in any action that he is able to take. I share his view that this is one of those compromise schemes which will do considerable damage, and I take the view that by spending relatively little more an interim scheme bypassing Emsworth altogether could be put into operation. Following that, a public inquiry was ordered. That started in 1969, and in June, 1969, it was adjourned because of the inadequacy of some of the statistics which were being discussed and produced at that inquiry. The inquiry was resumed in April, 1970, and the report was finally presented shortly after that. The facts are relatively simple, although when dealt with in great detail they can occupy a 140-page report.

It seems to me that there are essentially three choices. The first is to do nothing—a choice which is attractive to all Governments at all times. The second is to build a short bypass or a portion of it. The third is to build the long bypass, or some version of it, first. The argument lies between those who consider that both will be needed sooner or later, and those who consider that the long bypass will solve the problem virtually completely.

There is a version of the long bypass which is less expensive and which could be regarded as an interim version of it. It is some two miles in length instead of eight miles, with links at each end to the A27, essentially solving the main traffic problem of the inner part of Emsworth.

All these arguments were put to the public inquiry. It was a most thorough and objective inquiry, conducted with great efficiency by a retired judge, Mr. Shurlock. The House may be interested to know whether the inquiry reached equivocal and cautious conclusions. In fact, that is not the case. Far from being equivocal and cautious, the conclusions were unequivocal and dramatic.

I must read the essential conclusions. Mr. Shurlock stated his opinion as follows: There is deep public resentment against the Minister's proposals, and opposition from an extremely wide variety of interests. The scheme is actively opposed by the Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council. There is only very limited support from the Hampshire County Council. The price in terms of social upheaval and environmental dislocation which Emsworth is being asked to pay for a scheme with little to recommend itself is far too high, the interests of the town are being sacrificed and subordinated to the needs of through traffic by proposals which are no more than a temporary expedient—when a perfectly feasible scheme can be made available—and any immediate advantages which the scheme may have are heavily outweighed by its disadvantages. The obvious solution is the optimum short-term scheme to which Mr. Gilbert agreed on traffic grounds. These orders could only be made in the face of and in complete defiance of unanimous public opinion, and the Minister, in my opinion, would be wholly unjustified in making them. Those are strong words. But they are the conclusions of a most experienced and mature inspector who has considered the whole matter very objectively and reached his conclusions after the most thorough-going inquiry.

However, I add one other statement which has been made by a local citizen, a qualified surveyor, who has written to me about it: Briefly, I think that, in face of the Inspector's powerful recommendations, the 1967 view of Mr. Peter Walker, the increasing Government emphasis on the protection of the environment and the imminence of the Havant to Chichester Diversion, the Secretary of State has very formidable obstacles to overcome if justice is to be seen to be done. I agree wholeheartedly with both the conclusions of the inquiry and those of my constituent, Mr. Groom. However, I leave the inquiry to pass to one area where those concerned with the decision-making have shown themselves to be subject to a rather popular fallacy of this day and age which I refer to as "the exponential fallacy".

The decision-makers have examined a 5 per cent. compound traffic growth over the next 10 to 15 years. This is a very popular assumption to make about phenomena such as traffic. But it is like so many other exponential fallacies, whether one starts with the amusing example given by Lord Bowden that if monasteries had continued to be built at the rate at which they were in the first half of the 12th century we should have one in every square mile of Europe, or the other one concerning the growth of Ph.D.s in the United States in the 1950s, about which it was said that practically every citizen would be a Ph.D. by the end of the century if it continued.

It is not right to make analyses, even of such matters as traffic, completely dependent on the simple, straight-forward assumption of a 5 per cent. compound growth. If that were so, by 1984 not only would the road being considered in the middle of Emsworth be totally swamped by traffic, but virtually every other road in every similar village in the United Kingdom would face serious traffic thrombosis.

I find surprising and unexpected support for the case that I am putting tonight from no less a person that my right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Transport Industries, who in this Chamber last night said: Difficult as it may be, if we are to preserve narrow city streets, city centres, small country lanes and villages from violation by vehicles which have no place there, I see no alternative to a sensible policy of restriction on routes. I am sure that industry has the statesmanship and broadmindedness to accept this proposition, too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 1485.] I share that hope and aim, but in our approach to this problem we need five things. First, we need some imagination, and that is always a scarce commodity. Secondly, we need some rather more energetic traffic management than has been applied to problems of this kind. We need a combination of energy, imagination and traffic management of the kind which exhibited itself in the famous New York traffic commissioner who did so much to unsnarl New York some years ago. Thirdly, we need action on the intermediate section of the long bypass and its links. Fourthly, we need more respect for local judgment and opinion when it is so unanimous and so articulate as it has been in this case. Fifthly, we need above all consistency between our actions and our environmental preservation philosophy.

It seems to me that in a democracy the exercise of power even in a case of this kind must be seen on the whole to follow victory in argument and success in persuasion, and by these criteria the Minister dare not build the Emsworth short bypass. If the Minister wants to deal with the real problem in a sensible way he should start the long bypass just as soon as he can complete the necessary authorisations and statutory procedures, and that is the main message which I should like to convey to my hon. Friend.

11.42 p.m.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) for bringing to the attention of the House a problem with which I know he has been concerned in representing his constituency so ably, and that is the question of the Emsworth bypass.

It is important at the start that we should remember the scale of the problem. As my hon. Friend said, the bypass proposed would be one-third of a mile of 24 ft. single carriageway. It is a road to avoid the heavily congested dog-leg of the A27 trunk road which runs through Emsworth shopping centre in a conservation area. The line has been protected against prejudicial development since its inclusion in the development plan in 1961 following a development plan public inquiry. The facts about this road are that only four properties would have to be demolished, and parts of a public car park and Emsworth Cottage Hospital garden taken.

Once the Havant-Chichester section of the M27 has been built—and my hon. Friend has said a bit about that—the relief road would serve increasing local traffic. My hon. Friend mentioned the letter written by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I stress that that was more than five years ago, and it may well be that circumstances have changed since then.

I understand that there are ideas in some parts of the town that dual carriageways will be provided on this trunk route through Emsworth. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that that is not so. I should like to emphasise that the widening of the proposed relief road junction with North Street would enable central reservations about 100 yards long to be provided which would help pedestrians to cross, but apart from that, there is no intention of providing dual carriageways on any part of the A27 at Emsworth.

Pending a final decision—and I stress that no final decision has been taken—I am reluctant to argue the merits of the proposal, but I can say a few things which might help my hon. Friend and his constituents.

First, the Department's case was publicised both before and during the public inquiry into the draft orders and was repeated in the letter of 11th May which said that the Secretary of State was disposed to disagree with the inspector's recommendations. As my hon. Friend said, the inspector recommended that the orders should not be made. The Secretary of State is, however, glad to take into account any new factor or slant on the proposals, and following representations made by my hon. Friend and many of his constituents, the deadline has been advanced to 31st July. We are prepared to receive representations until that date.

My hon. Friend referred to an editorial in a local newspaper and queried the whole inquiry system. He asked why, if an inspector makes recommendations of this sort and one has a public inquiry, they ought not to be accepted. Every case has to be looked at on its merits. The purpose of holding a public inquiry is to enable the Secretary of State to be fully informed on all aspects of proposals before coming to a decision. An inspector's duty is to ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their cases, for or against the proposal, and to find out and to record relevant facts. An inspector has to report on the objections as they have been presented to him, to express his views on the merits of the proposals in the light of all the evidence and then to recommend accordingly.

However, it is for the Secretary of State to decide on the proposals, and obviously he does not lightly set aside an inspector's recommendation in any public inquiry. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State has the final responsibility. The buck stops with him; he cannot abdicate his responsibilities for making a decision.

Two years elapsed between the last session of the inquiry, in May, 1970, and the announcement by my right hon. Friend of his disposition to disagree with the inspector in May of this year. Some time, of course, was required for the inspector to prepare and present his report. The report required careful study, and legal advice was needed on some aspects. No one would have wished for a hurried and hasty decision on what are, clearly, extremely controversial proposals. Objectors have asked for and been allowed nearly three months to make further representations. In retrospect, I am bound to say that my hon. Friend was right to do this. On 11th May three weeks was given for the representations, and in this case that was probably too short a period. It is certainly a period specifically prescribed in the Lord Chancellor's rules for further representations from objectors when a Minister has differed from an inspector on a point of fact and for that reason is disposed to disagree with his recommendation. We responded to my hon. Friend's appeal, and I hope that there is some satisfaction in that.

Certainly the delay that all this has brought about has shortened the period during which the proposed relief road would serve trunk traffic. Traffic usage is expected to be high, so purely in economic terms—I have noted my hon. Friend's point about the environment—this section of road would be justified even if it served for only two and a half years or three years. We cannot ignore the fact that without this relief road the effect on the A27 before the M27 is constructed could be very serious.

Regarding the M27—to my hon. Friend, perhaps the much more satisfactory local bypass—it could be asked whether better progress could not have been made with the scheme for the Havant-Chichester length of the motorway. My view is that, unfortunately, it could not. A feasibility study was begun in 1967 into the better alignment of the A27 east of the Havant bypass. A scheme to improve the road was accepted into the preparation pool in 1968. Acceptance of a scheme into the preparation pool enables sufficient engineering work to be carried out to establish a recommended route and to recommend design standards and more accurate estimates of costs and benefits. All these things are incorporated into a preliminary report and this takes time.

The best forecast was that the M27 could be completed by about the middle of 1976. Only after the preliminary report stage is sufficient information available to enable draft statutory orders under the Highways Acts, to be prepared and published, and this is the position we have now reached with the proposed M27 Havant-Chichester scheme.

I am pleased to tell myhon. Friend and the House that draft orders are due to be published for this scheme next week, on Tuesday, 4th July. The present forecast—at this stage this is only tentative and still depends very much on the speed of the statutory procedures, the weather and all sorts of factors—is that the construction should be completed by the original forecast date of May, 1976. The procedures were explained in great detail at the public inquiry. By contrast, we estimate that if the relief road were to go ahead it would be completed in about 12 to 15 months, again subject to weather and one or two other variable factors.

My hon. Friend mentioned the question of the intermediate bypass. The inspector envisaged earlier construction of the western two miles of the Havant-Chichester section of M27 and a link between this and the existing A27 to bypass Emsworth. However, as was explained at the inquiry, there might well prove to be no economic justification for the proposed link, which would be an expensive way to achieve less traffic benefit for Emsworth, since it would have no value for local traffic, and which could hardly be ready much before the full Havant-Chichester length of M27.

As I have said before, no final decision has been taken. We are ready to consider all comments, objections and further representations up to 31st July. We will take carefully into account everything that my hon. Friend has said tonight. I note what my hon. Friend said about the speech my right hon. Friend made in the House last night. My hon. Friend will probably agree with the points I made in the speech I made in the House last Friday about lorries and the problems of the environment.

In the overall approach that we are trying to follow in the Department, we are very conscious of environmental factors and of trying to get the right decision for the town of Emsworth and my hon. Friend's constituents. I can say nothing further usefully, as the matter is still essentially sub judice and my right hon. Friend will be making a decision as soon as possible after he has considered all the representations after the end of July.

My hon. Friend has done the House and his constituents a service by raising this matter. We will try to make the very best decision possible for his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.