HC Deb 04 April 1978 vol 947 cc239-49
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's policy for the trunk road and motorway system.

The transport policy White Paper published last June outlined a new approach to the planning and improvement of the national road network. In the spirit of this approach I have now carried out a review of the objectives and methods of the trunk road programme in England and completed the first stage of a reassessment of all the schemes in it The results are brought together in the White Paper "Policy for Roads: England 1978" which I have today presented to Parliament.

My Department, jointly with the Department of the Environment, has also been reviewing the procedures for public inquiries into trunk road schemes. We have been guided by the Council on Tribunals, with which we have worked closely. The Government's intentions are set out in the White Paper "Report on the Review of Highway Inquiry Procedures" which I have today presented jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Copies of both White Papers have been available in the Vote Office since 3 o'clock.

To devise and implement the right policy for roads presents many problems and dilemmas. Within the framework of the national transport policy, we need a road system that will support our major national objectives—the industrial strategy, regional development and the regeneration of inner city areas—as well as relieve the serious local problems caused by traffic. The inter-urban road system has been transformed over the last 15 to 20 years but many deficiencies remain. The routes to the major ports are not yet complete. There is an urgent need for an orbital route round London. Certain of the assisted areas still lack adequate communications, and many bypasses are required. Hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House continue to urge priority for new roads to serve their constituencies.

Yet people are now less inclined to take for granted the assumptions on which road planning has proceeded in the past—for example, about future levels of traffic. They are less willing to accept the lengthy disruption caused by major construction projects. They are alert to the possibly damaging consequences, as they see it, of major new roads for the areas in which they live. As a result, there has been some dissatisfaction with the way that my Department and its predecessors have explained their proposals and apparently made their decisions. Public inquiries have on occasions been disrupted.

I shall not take up the time of the House by detailing all the changes which I propose. But the main elements of the new approach are these. First, in place of a predetermined strategic network, our approach will be selective. Within the planned level of investment on trunk roads and motorways of about £300 million, there will be a more rigorous approach to priorities, with emphasis on vital industrial routes, but also increasingly on schemes with high environmental benefits.

Secondly, there will be more flexibility in applying design standards in the light of greater uncertainty about future traffic levels and the cost and supply of oil. Greater flexibility also reflects my concern that roads should be fitted into the environment in a discriminating way.

Thirdly, in the appraisal of road schemes my Department will apply a comprehensive framework for decision, as recommended by the Leitch Committee, whose report was published in January. It will set out the range of factors that need to be taken into account—economic, social and environmental: those that can be quantified and those that cannot. In this way, each can be given its full weight, and a balanced judgment can be made.

Fourthly, there will be a greater openness at the various stages of planning, from public consultation to the inquiry. In the arrangements for inquiries, my Department will secure that realistic alternatives are genuinely explored. It will make available information covering the range of factors on which road proposals are based and decisions reached so that, as far as possible, there can be equality of information for all those concerned.

Finally, we need to put beyond doubt the impartiality of inspectors who are appointed to conduct trunk road and motorway inquiries. With the approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will, in future, in exercising our statutory obligations, ask my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, to nominate a particular individual considered by him to be suitable for a particular inquiry.

On this basis, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can have a road programme that meets the country's needs and commands a very wide measure of approval. Where there are conflicts of interest, they can be resolved openly and fairly. "Policy for Roads: England 1978" is the first of a new series of annual policy statements which will enable the House, if it chooses, to discuss the principles underlying the decisions of Ministers. I shall also welcome wider public discussion of these important issues.

Mr. Norman Fowler

The House will need time to consider these reports. We welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that there will be a debate on them. May I put three short questions to the Secretary of State? First, is he aware that in many areas of the country there is an urgent need for bypasses and relief roads to keep traffic away from residential areas? Do the Government intend to give priority here?

Secondly, does the Secretary of State share the view of many local authorities that road maintenance is deteriorating to a potentially dangerous level? Does he not agree that it is important that existing roads do not fall into disrepair? Thirdly, does he agree that now the inquiry procedure is being further improved—and we welcome this improvement—there can be absolutely no justification for the disruption of public inquiries? Will he make it absolutely clear that the Department will not be influenced in any way by such strong-arm tactics in the future?

Mr. Rodgers

I am grateful to the hon. Member. The question of a debate is not a matter for me. Certainly I and my colleagues would welcome a debate on these important issues as soon as time can be found.

The hon. Member raised three issues. He will find in both of the White Papers, particularly in the one dealing with the road programme, a clear indication that we shall be giving priority to relief roads and bypasses. I agree that there is a great demand for these and they often have considerable environmental advantages. On the question of road maintenance, I am aware that there is a view held in some parts of the country that irrespective of the severe weather that we have been having there has been some deterioration. I have been trying to find a means of evaluating the alternative trends and a basis on which decisions can be made. This is not easy. However, if I were satisfied that maintenance had been reduced too far I should be prepared to consider switching expenditure.

I agree that there is no case at all for disrupting highway inquiries. I hope that all those who are not against building any roads at any time on principle but who believe that roads should be carefully chosen and fitted into the environment will now feel that the procedures set out in the White Paper will provide an adequate basis for them to be heard. My Department will resist any suggestion that disruptive behaviour at inquiries will determine the final outcome.

Mr. John Ellis

Is there anything in the White Paper that deals with a policy on toll bridges? Is my right hon. Friend aware that although some of us are opposed to toll bridges we appreciate that there is a problem with the Humber Bridge for example? We appreciate that bridges have to be financed by tolls but there is a possibility that they will not be used if the level of toll is too high. Is he aware that there is a likelihood of a continuing financial crisis for the Humber Bridge because the revenue is not sufficient to meet the cost of servicing, the capital and keeping it in repair? If there is nothing in the White Paper on this subject, will my right hon. Friend take this problem on board?

Mr. Rodgers

I shall take the problem on board. There is nothing in the White Paper about this matter. I know my hon. Friend's concern about the Humber Bridge, which he has expressed frequently in the House. It is not only the Humber Bridge that is involved; there are other toll facilities. There would be a substantial cost and we should have to find the money from elsewhere to remove the tolls on existing tunnels and bridges and to pay off the capital debt.

Sir David Renton

I accept the need for more roads, but is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a tendency up to now to disregard the need to conserve farm land? Can he give the House some idea of the number of thousands of acres of farm land that will go out of production as a result of his White Paper? What steps will be taken to conserve farm land as far as possible in the future?

Mr. Rodgers

I cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman the number of acres of farm land that might go out of use as a result of the White Paper. I can say only that there will be fewer than if the former road programme had been maintained at its then volume. He should feel that the procedures that we have outlined in the second White Paper will ensure that, if there is any doubt about this, all those with a legitimate objection, on the grounds that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, will be heard and will have their views taken into account.

Mr. Leadbitter

The White Paper at least has the right kind of objective for dealing with the method of stopping the disruption of public inquiries. My right hon. Friend has stated that one of the purposes is to produce into the environment a discriminatory process in order to arrive at balanced judgments. Perhaps the time has come for the Government to take a more positive role in encouraging the proper representation of objections in such a way that disruptions are diminished. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a part to play both in the conservation of land and in meeting the objections of property owners to Government roads schemes? The Government also have a duty to provide proper legal procedures. Does he not agree that this would meet the objective that he has in mind?

Mr. Rodgers

If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, I can give him that assurance. It is very important, as he says, that all those who have a legitimate objection and want to be heard should now be aware that they can be heard and that from now on our procedures from the beginning until construction starts are procedures in which everyone can participate if he has a direct interest or a legitimate point of view to express.

Mr. Pardoe

Does the Minister accept that there has been some waste of public expenditure on the quality of the bypasses built and planned by the last Conservative Government, particularly in the West Country? Will he confirm that the bypass that is now to be built at Okehampton will not be the same excessive standard as those built in parts of my constituency elsewhere in the West Country?

Mr. Rodgers

I entirely agree with the hon. Member. For reasons that the House can understand, a lot of road building was excessively ambitious at the time. It is only fair to say, however, that while the hon. Member urges me to downgrade the standards of roads, other right hon. and hon. Members will be urging me to do precisely the opposite. I shall have to judge this as best I can in individual cases as they arise.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Let me inform the House that since we have business governed by a timetable motion today and since there is also a Ten-Minute Bill, I propose to allow questions on the statement until 4 o'clock. The number of hon. Members who will be called will depend on how brief the questions are.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

I thank my right hon. Friend for the welcome statement he has made. Will he confirm that the fact that the Lord Chancellor is to be consulted does not necessarily mean that a legal person—a barrister or a solicitor—will be appointed, but that the object of the exercise is to secure the independence of the person so appointed, not his professional qualifications? It is not clear from what my right hon. Friend said that Wales is affected in whole or in part by this statement. Will he confirm that it applies to the Principality?

Mr. Rodgers

I can confirm my right hon. Friend's point about the second White Paper referring to highway inquiries. On the procedural point, he is also correct. The reason that the Lord Chancellor is to choose people for these inquiries in future is to remove all reasonable doubt about questions of impartiality. There is no reason why he should choose lawyers for the task.

Mr. Tebbit

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no new procedures will apply to the M25 routes which have already been cleared, particularly that affecting the constituency of Chingford between the A10 and the M11? Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with one point that affects me personally, as opposed to my constituents? Is his mind still firmly made up that the M41 bypass of Berk-hamsted is definitely out and that a dual-purpose dual carriageway road will be built?

Mr. Rodgers

The new procedures set out today will apply as soon as possible, but obviously where decisions have been made by Ministers and where roads have gone out to tender they will proceed. Schemes still at some stage of preparation will be subject to review. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he has correctly stated the position, but I shall confirm that to him. One of the elements in our whole new approach is that we shall be looking at priorities and standards all the time. We shall feel the need for flexibility both up and down when we consider the growth of traffic, environmental factors and the other claims on resources.

Mr. Rossi

May I ask whether, notwithstanding the abandonment of the Archway Road improvement scheme in the face of what the Minister termed organised disruption, the fact that the scheme appears likely to start, according to Table C in the White Paper, in the period 1981–83, means that he still regards the improvement as important within the programme? If so, when does he intend to reopen the matter under the new procedures announced today?

Mr. Rodgers

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am deeply concerned about the problems which remain in the Archway Road and which he has raised in this House on many occasions. My decision to abandon the current inquiry was made not on grounds of environmental problems there but on other grounds. As the hon. Gentleman said, the White Paper indicates that decisions are still to be made about how that improvement will take place. I shall be proceeding with consultations just as soon as I can because I think those who live on that road deserve relief when it can be achieved.

Mr. Urwin

I give a broad welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement on the review of highway inquiry procedures, but is he aware that there will be some disappointment that he has not referred in his statement to the underspending, estimated in the region of £160 million, by his Department on roads over the last two years? Does he intend to do anything to redeem that amount of money in the best interests of improving communications in the Northern Region to make an impact on high unemployment in the construction industry?

Mr. Rodgers

My hon. Friend knows very well that there are always very grave problems in judging exactly when construction work will be completed. Completion is very much affected by the weather and other factors which cannot be forecast far ahead. He mentioned a figure for underspend which covers a period of two years. It covers not only my responsibilities but those of local authorities over whom I have no control. I hope, however, that we shall spend the whole of the £300 million while at the same time avoiding the sort of overspend which would also be unacceptable to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Grocott

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a welcome, albeit a rueful one, for the clear statement in paragraph 102 that Tamworth is an expanding town with severe traffic problems? Does he agree that there is a special obligation on the Government to help those authorities such as Tamworth that have helped to solve other people's environmental programmes by taking on massive housing problems? Does he not agree that the Government have a special responsibility to solve the environmental problems of such towns with a proper road network?

Mr. Rodgers

Yes, and in reaching our decisions and making judgments on priorities that is something that we shall certainly take into account. I should make clear, however, that the White Paper refers to my responsibilities as Secretary of State, and a substantial part of the road programme is the direct responsibility of local authorities. I cannot determine what their priorities should be or necessarily the speed at which they move.

Mr, Fry

Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be a warm welcome for the fact that Parliament can now approve the overall policy for roads, thus removing that factor from the scope of individual highway inquiries? Does he realise that the new procedures laid down for these inquiries will tend to make them last rather longer? Will he therefore look, as a matter of urgency, at the route for the A1-M1 link, which is part of the vital Midlands-East Coast ports connection?

Mr. Rodgers

It is desirable that Parliament should take these White Papers seriously, because, as the hon. Gentleman implies, some of the criticism has been that the House has been too ready to allow these decisions to be made by Ministers without ever having debated and challenged them. I am happy to have my decisions debated and challenged in the House, if that will increase public confidence in the awareness of these issues and of what the cost will be. I give the hon. Member the undertaking that he seeks in the second part of his question.

Mr. Greville Janner

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saying that he is to place emphasis on schemes of high environmental benefit? Does the converse apply—that he will try to keep away from those schemes that are likely to create social and environmental chaos, such as the projected schemes which may cut in half some of the great estates in Leicester, dividing up the communities in them?

Mr. Rodgers

I doubt whether those roads are my personal responsibility. Rather they would be the responsibility of the county council. However, my hon. and learned Friend mentions an important point. Environment cuts both ways. Sometimes a road will improve the environment, but sometimes it will damage it. We must be in favour of the first while doing our best to avoid the second either in rural or urban areas.

Mr. Temple Morris

Is the Minister aware that few things have suffered more from cut-backs in Government expenditure than bypass schemes for our ancient towns and villages? The Secretary of State has mentioned a welcome greater priority, as I understood what he said, in this regard. Will he go into more detail about that priority? Are we dealing with aspirations and good intentions of the Department of Transport, or is this a definitive Government commitment backed by the necessary expenditure?

Mr. Rodgers

It is certainly a definite Government commitment backed in my programme by the necessary expenditure. I make the point clear, however, that the programme of local roads is the responsibility of county councils, and although I hope that they will act in the spirit of both of these White Papers, ultimately that is a matter for them, not for me.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.

Mr. Sydney Irving

Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most serious deficiencies, perhaps in the whole of our road system, is the failure to provide an adequate road out of London to the South-East, to Kent and the Continent? As this has been due, in part, to prolonged consultative procedures, does he expect that in the special situation of London his new policies will expedite this project?

Mr. Rodgers

My right hon. Friend puts his finger on a problem which I think the White Paper acknowledges—that the more that people want to be consulted and are consulted, the longer the procedures are likely to be. I have certainly been very concerned that in making consultation more effective and in satisfying demand for it we do not make the whole process much too long. I do not think that I can give an undertaking in quite the terms that my right hon. Friend suggests, for that very reason. But, in so far as it is within my control, yes, I shall try to expedite the roads that he has mentioned.

Mr. David Price

Would the House be correct in interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's statement as meaning that, whatever decisions are made for the future, he will press ahead with and complete the existing published motorway programme, especially to the ports? If that is correct, will he say when he will announce a decision on the missing link of the M27 around Southampton?

Mr. Rodgers

No, I think that the hon. Gentleman slightly misinterprets the purpose of the White Paper. It does not simply confirm the existing programme, such as it is. It takes a new look at the programme as it was and sets out in detail, in the appendices to the White Paper, the priority that we are now giving to individual schemes. But I know of the hon. Gentleman's particular concern, and if he is not satisfied by what he finds in the White Paper, I shall certainly write to him.