HC Deb 19 December 1973 vol 866 cc1531-44

1.14 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock)

I should like to begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for keeping him up so late. I realise that he has much to occupy him and that he has not been too well recently. I also take this opportunity to thank him for his unfailing courtesy and considerable help over a long period in what is an extremely important constituency issue. I hope that he will set his seal on all his endeavours by giving me a good answer tonight.

My hon. Friend is slightly lucky on this occasion, because when I last raised this subject on the Adjournment in February 1971 we began at 4.14 a.m. Therefore, he has escaped lightly compared with his hon. Friend, now the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping, who had to answer at that time, and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford), who, again, I am pleased to see this evening.

The improvements that are necessary to the A5 and the siting of the M54 form a very important constituency issue for Cannock. It goes back before the General Election. Indeed, it was one of the local issues in the election. At that stage the proposal was to drive a motorway link from the M6 to Telford and three possible routes were being discussed.

I took a different line from the beginning, with almost unanimous local support. I suggested that the proper solution to the traffic problems of Telford and the least damaging environmentally would be to widen and to improve the existing trunk road—the A5. I advanced that solution on a number of occasions, including the last debate on the issue in the House.

As a result, my hon. Friends were helpful. An inquiry was held at which a northern route—not the A5, but a road near it, which was not a very satisfactory route—was considered as an alternative to the so-called southern route.

The inspector made his report and the Minister made his decision. The inspector's report was not entirely satisfactory, in as much as he did not come down firmly in favour of one route or the other. He pointed out that there were considerable environmental objections to the southern route and suggested that perhaps further investigation should be conducted in the northern corridor near the A5.

However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, over a year after the inquiry had finished, decided that it should be the southern route. I must say, in as restrained and respectful a manner as I can, that the way in which my right hon. Friend made his decision has caused a great deal of disturbance and ill-feeling locally. The impression was given that the whole thing was a fait accompli from the start and that the inquiry was superfluous and the inspector's recommendations were not listened to. I do not go along with that. I do not believe that is was a fait accompli. I believe that the inquiry was a valuable exercise. But local people, inevitably close to the problem and terribly affected by it, feel extremely disturbed.

The attitude, on environmental grounds, of the CPRE and the important article in Country Life in the summer served to underline this dissatisfaction. The reason was the fact that the landscape through which the southern route would carve its way is of quite outstanding quality. I do not want to expand upon its beauties at great length because I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin to make some comments. But it is a beautiful landscape. I should like to mention one or two places. There is Chillington, within my constituency, which with its wonderful Capability Brown landscaped park and the countryside around is one of the gems of rural England. The whole area between my home village of Brewood and the neighbouring village of Codsall is tremendously attractive. The fact that it is so near one of the biggest conurbations in the country makes it that much more attractive by comparison. In my hon. Friend's constituency, around Tong, the gems are there for all to see.

What I shall suggest tonight, in the light of the recent announcement of cuts in public expenditure, is that my right hon. and learned Friend should perhaps rethink this matter. Perhaps this could be one of the roads which could be cut or at least deferred. I hope that my hon. Friend the" Under-Secretary will say something about that.

However, whatever happens with regard to the M54, the problem of the A5 remains as acute as ever, and improvements between Gailey and Weston-under-Lizard are absolutely essential. They would produce the same sort of miraculous improvement in traffic flow as has been achieved in Brownhills recently.

I shall make the rest of my remarks on the assumption that the decision will not be reversed, because we have to act on that assumption tonight. As I said, whatever happens with regard to the M54, the A5 must be improved. It is inadequate throughout this whole stretch. As long ago as September 1970. the then Minister said that there was no doubt that the existing length of the A5 was inadequate for the traffic then using it. Since then the daily traffic flow has risen by 20 per cent., according to an Answer that I was given as recently as 28th November.

I want to speak briefly about two particular sections of the A5. Ivetsey Bank and Weston-under-Lizard are both accident hazards. Ivetsey Bank crossroads are on the crest of a hill. Something must be done about that, and done soon. But perhaps the most crying need of all is for the village of Weston-under-Lizard. This charming and delightful rural spot is an obvious candidate for a bypass, and for some 50 years a by-pass has been on the cards and pressed for by local people. Surely the time has come when their pleas and prayers should be answered. Every walk taken in that village is almost a walk with death. The peace of the area and the nerves of its people are shattered. Will my hon. Friend give a little hope that these people will be able to live in an atmopshere of tranquillity, calm and safety?

With regard to the M54, at present the proposed southern route is the subject of a great deal of anxiety. I have mentioned the beauties of Chillington, the area between Brewood and Codsall, and so on. The level of the road in certain places is causing acute local concern. If this route is to be persisted with, we should have a new and radical departure in motorway preparation.

Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider the idea which I put to him some time ago of a landscaping consultant answerable directly to him through my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—somebody who would talk to the people, who would discuss their problems, who would listen to their proposed solutions, who would allow of a real degree of public participation.

I am not casting any aspersions on the RCU, which has a difficult task to do and which does it as conscientiously as it can, but it is not sufficient for local people—my constituents—to talk merely to civil servants: they need somebody else. Although this would be creating a precedent, I believe that it would be a happy one and would show that the Minister has at heart the beauties of the environment. Although there may be occasions when economic considerations have to outweigh environmental ones, if this were done at least it would be shown that every step was being taken to safeguard the environmental glories that are there.

May I ask my hon. Friend, finally, whether at least he will agree to come to my constituency and discuss these issues with the people there, so that they can talk to him. I will say no more tonight. I hope that I shall have some reassurance on these various points from my hon. Friend—in other words, a promise on the A5, a landscape consultant or something equivalent, and the promise of his presence in my constituency at an early date.

1.26 a.m.

Dr. Anthony Trafford (The Wrekin)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) for his courtesy in allowing me to make two points. He knows, as does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that I take a slightly different view about the motorway and its necessity. I believe that it is necessary to have a motorway link. Although I personally favoured a different route, the fact is that the over-riding necessity was to have a motorway into the area and to have a decision taken so that local people could make plans for the future.

I regarded the inspector's report as totally useless, because it decided nothing. The whole purpose of a report is to come to a conclusion. No conclusion was reached and a rather vague recommendation was made, thus giving credence to the idea amongst local people that the whole thing was a put-up job and that it was all a foregone conclusion. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock the view that it was not so.

I should also like to take the opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his personal courtesy in the way he has dealt with this matter, for the number of times he has seen us, and for the great deal of trouble he has taken over it.

May I ask my hon Friend the Under-Secretary to say something about the green belt in the area which has been designated an interim green belt? The word "interim" has caused a certain amount of alarm locally. I am virtually asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, first, whether he could take a view on this landscaping of the route—I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock in this—and, secondly, whether he can reassure local people about the green belt in their area. I am glad that a decision has now been taken. I think that it was right that a motorway should have been decided upon, even though I am sorry about the route chosen. But now that the decision has been made—and I assume that it stands—it is important that the local people should be reassured both about the future of the green belt in the area around the road and about the landscaping of the road itself.

1.28 a.m.

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

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) for their very kind remarks about me.

Dealing first with the question of the green belt, the proposals are now, I hope, reaching their final stages. They still have to be confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend. Basically, they are of two kinds, the first being a green belt which it is proposed fully to confirm. That should reassure the constituents of my hon. Friends.

As regards the interim green belt through which this motorway, when it is built, will run, the interim green belt is being treated by my Department and by the local authority to all intents and purposes as if it were a confirmed green belt. The question mark that hangs over it is final confirmation in the structure plans of Salop and Staffordshire.

However, it was made clear to developers and others when statements were issued by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself a few months ago to the effect that it should be treated to all intents and purposes as if it were a confirmed green belt. It is merely awaiting a final decision upon its status.

If anyone thinks that he will be able to rush in and undertake developments alongside the motorway, or elsewhere in this interim area, I suspect that he may find that not only the local authority but my Department would have to treat each planning application on its merits, as would be usual, but also against a background as though the area had been confirmed green belt. I hope that before long it will be possible finally to decide the interim areas throughout the West Midlands.

I should like to say at the start of this short but important debate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is very well aware of the deep concern that my hon. Friend has expressed on a number of occasions about the effect that the M54 could have on the environment of this part of the West Midlands if it were not treated with the utmost sensitivity and the greatest possible attention paid to methods of alleviating visual intrusion into attractive and unspoilt countryside. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock has on a number of occasions written to my right hon. and learn Friend and discussed with him and with me the decision about the route.

I accept that my hon. Friend has been sincerely convinced that an alternative scheme involving extensive improvements to the existing A5 and possibly a new route in the A5 corridor could have been a better solution on planning and economic grounds, but I must repeat that the Secretary of State's decision in favour of the southern route for the motorway was taken only after the fullest possible consideration of the inspector's report following the public inquiry and the fullest possible consideration of all the objections and representations made at and prior to the inquiry.

My right hon. and learn Friend's decision about the route was influenced by the fact that no northern route could be found which would have environmental advantages sufficient to outweigh the substantial traffic and economic advantages of the southern route. In effect, this means that even if it were possible to find a northern route for the motorway which had no environmental disadvantages at all, which is a rather unlikely event, this would not offset the margin of advantage in other terms offered by the southern route.

I should like to set the record straight by emphasising that in his report the independent—I stress "independent"—inspector did not in fact recommend rejection of the southern route but rather that before the draft scheme for this route was made there should be further investigation into the feasibility of a less intrusive route in the northern corridor. As I have said, no such route could be found, and it was only after carefully reviewing this recommendation in the light of all the information available to him that the Secretary of State decided not to proceed with further studies. The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector's firm conclusion that in terms of traffic and economics the published southern route had significant advanta-ages, and he concluded that overall advantage would lie with adopting the southern route.

I should say that I appreciate fully that the construction of a motorway inevitably involves intrusion into the environment—I already have one in my constituency and another coming shortly—but I stress again that the Secretary of State has made clear that he considers that the damaging effects can be greatly reduced by sensitivity in design and environmental treatment.

I wish to re-emphasise this because my right hon. and learned Friend has been mistakenly accused by a number of people of either ignoring the inspector's views or rejecting a recommendation in favour of a northern route, neither of which has happened. I must emphasise, as my hon. Friends have, that the public inquiry was not just a farce. There was no fait accompli before the inquiry or before the inspector's report was received.

I must make clear at this stage that there is absolutely no possibility—I cannot respond to my hon. Friend's invitation—of the Secretary of State's decision being altered in the present circumstances. The motorway link for Telford is urgently required, and, given satisfactory conclusion of the statutory procedures and funds being available at the time, it is our intention to proceed with the detailed design and construction of the motorway. This decision to proceed with the M54 Telford Motorway will result in a significant reduction of traffic on the section of the A5 between Gayley Interchange and Weston-under-Lizard, the stretch of the A5 referred to by my hon. Friend.

The section to which my hon. Friend refers is generally a 22-feet wide single carriageway across undulating country and it has a low accident rate, less than one injury accident per million-vehicle miles. Major restrictions would not therefore be justified, particularly since. as I have already mentioned, the motorway will in due course reduce the amount of traffic using this road. None the less there are two points at which the rate of accidents has been somewhat higher than the average for this part of A5. At Ivetsey Bank, as my hon. Friend said, on the eastern approach to Weston-under-Lizard the rate is 2.4 injury accidents per million-vehicle miles, and at a double bend on the western boundary of Weston-under-Lizard near the junction with the B5314 the figure is three injury accidents per million-vehicle miles.

As a result of the examination which has been carried out following the action of my hon. Friend in drawing these accident figures to the Secretary of State's attention, I am pleased to be able to inform him that we are presently discussing with the Department's agent authority—Staffordshire County Council—the possibility of carrying out small improvements at these points. I must, however, stress that at this stage I certainly cannot promise a full-scale bypass of Weston-under-Lizard. We appreciate that there are problems, however, and we are discussing with the agent authority the possibility of these improvements.

I must make clear that I cannot give any commitment that improvements to these stretches of the A5 will necessarily find a place in the Department's programme, given first of all that there are numerous priority schemes which have to be fitted into the programme in the light of available funds. As my hon. Friend will know, the cuts in Government expenditure announced earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have necessitated and are necessitating a comprehensive reexamination of the programme, and the results of this are awaited. It will be a little time yet before my right hon. and learned Friend can tell the House what those results are.

In the meantime, to avoid the risk of accidents at the A5/B5314 junction west of Weston-under-Lizard, northbound traffic is prohibited from turning right and has to proceed about half a mile to the A41 roundabout and then northwards on A41. Arrangements are also being made to provide more permanent signs for southbound traffic on B5314 to give greater warning of the A5 junction; the existing "Give way" sign at the junc tion will also be repositioned. I hope my hon. Friend will accept that these measures are intended to ensure that close consideration is given to possible methods of reducing risk of accidents which has properly caused him concern.

I should like now to turn to the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock both in meetings and in correspondence and also tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin about which methods we might adopt to ensure that the Secretary of State's undertaking to examine reasonably practicable measures for alleviating the damaging effects of the motorway on the environment is carried out successfully.

The House will recall that the main grounds of objection to the southern route were that the motorway would intrude into attractive unspoilt countryside, particularly in the vicinity of Tong, Cod-sail Wood and Chillington, and that certain buildings of historical interest, including the listed Grecian Temple at Chillington Hall, would be too close to the route. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is also aware of the strong local feeling that exists and also that a number of local residents and other interested individuals and organisations may wish to make observations about what could be done to ameliorate possible damage to the environment in this area.

To that end my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has decided that the environmental treatment of the road and the various remedial measures which can be adopted should be matters on which informed public comment should be sought. I hope that in that way I can immediately respond to the most helpful suggestions which my hon. Friend has made.

My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to achieve that by seeking the participation of the public in the detailed landscape and environmental treatment to be accorded to the route, as a result of the inspector's recommendations and his own undertakings set out in his decision letter. He proposes to undertake an informal exercise to seek the public's views on methods of alleviating the environmental impact of the chosen southern route. He proposes to appoint an eminent landscape architect as a consultant to examine alternative environmental treatment prepared by the Department for the M54, based on the suggestions put forward at the public inquiry. These will be exhibited by means of display of photographs, plans and possibly models so that the intention of the proposals may be readily understood by interested laymen.

The landscape architect consultant, who is yet to be selected, will be asked to attend these exhibitions and to meet by appointment members of the public who wish to make a genuine contribution to the proposals. Although the time and place of these exhibitions remains to be fixed, I can assure my hon. Friend that officials of the Department of the Environment will be present to answer queries and discuss and record comments made by interested parties. In due course the landscape architect consultant will be asked to correlate all comments made with his own findings and submit an integrated report direct to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It is expected that in his report the consultant will not only refer to the relative importance of various measures and alternatives proposed but will also express a view on the intrinsic value for money represented by the alternative put forward.

Following receipt of this report the Secretary of State will decide which proposals he feels should be incorporated into the scheme, and this could lead in due course to the need for further compulsory purchase orders and possible modifications to the side road orders being necessary in order to ensure successful overall landscape treatment. If it were to become necessary the Secretary of State would consider holding a joint inquiry into the proposals.

I hope that my Department will be in a position to give more details regarding the proposed exhibitions in the near future, although I must stress that whatever is decided must depend very much on the availability of resources following the inevitable re-examination of the trunk road programme in the light of cuts in Government expenditure.

We have taken this decision because of the sensitivity of the M54 scheme and in the light of particular recommendations by the inspector at the inquiry held in July 1972, and not least by the representations that my hon. Friends have been making and their most helpful, positive and constructive suggestions. But we accept that other special cases may arise from time to time which might merit similar treatment because of their special sensitivity. I must make it clear that such cases must be considered on their merits in the light of the economic and other considerations pertaining at the time.

My hon. Friend has invited me to see his constituents and visit the area. I certainly accept his invitation. It might be more appropriate for me to visit his constituency in my ministerial capacity when the exhibition is over and we have received the recommendations of the landscape architect, but with that caveat I should like publicly to accept my hon. Friend's invitation.

I hope that what I have announced to the House tonight on behalf of the Secretary of State will go some way to reassure my hon. Friends of our serious concern to ameliorate as far as possible the environmental damage that might result from proceeding with the M54 on the line chosen. As I have said, it may well be, and probably will be, that similar treatment will be required with other motorways from time to time, in very sensitive schemes.

This is a significant step forward when taken into account with the earlier participation, the booklet it has issued, the major provisions of the Land Compensation Act, and the new sensitivity to environmental treatment. I think that I can claim that this Government are treating the public properly and taking them into their confidence more than any other previous Government did. In constructing motorways we must inevitably disrupt the lives of many people. We intend to show the world that we really care about people and are sensitive to their feelings.

Mr. Cormack

I thank my hon. Friend very much for what he said. It was a most constructive speech.

Dr. Trafford

May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that The Wrekin would also like to see him? When he visits my hon. Friend's constituency I hope that he will step over the border into Shropshire and look at the other end of the M54.

Mr. Speed

I thank both my hon. Friends. I shall be delighted to visit not only Cannock but The Wrekin—perhaps one in the morning and one in the afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock.