§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]
§ 8.48 p.m.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out a number of issues on the proposed Airedale trunk road and to seek from the Minister a number of assurances for the future.
The background to the present proposal goes back more than 10 years. In 1968 an Aire valley motorway was proposed which, when revealed in 1973, would have been highly intrusive and expensive and would in no way have relieved local traffic conditions on the A650-A629 trunk road. For example, there was only one southbound entry possible near Silsden, and entry at Keighley was by means of a massive interchange. The motorway affected 116 houses in the Stockbridge area of Keighley, and there was a likelihood of several schools in the Aire valley being closed or polluted by noise.
1425 I opposed the proposed motorway before, during and after election to this House. After my representations were made repeatedly by means of questions and an Adjournment debate, and a visit to the site by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Transport, the motorway proposal was withdrawn. The civil servants of the then Department of the Environment were required to produce a means of providing genuine relief to the crowded traffic conditions on the existing trunk road.
On 18 April 1975 the then Minister of Transport published revised proposals for an Airedale trunk road. This was a dual-carriage trunk road, which was much less intrusive than the motorway, following, for example, in Keighley the line of the link road and abandoning the line of the old motorway proposal entirely. In consequence, almost 100 houses were removed from the threat of the bulldozer.
I welcomed the proposal in the following terms—I quote from the Keighley News of 18 April 1975:
I welcome the new proposals since it is clear criticisms arising from the now abandoned motorway project which I raised on several occasions in the House of Commons have largely been met. Commentators, who suggested that the new all-purpose trunk road would simply follow the motorway route, have been proved wrong. The new proposal is radically different in several respects. First, it will be less disruptive in the valley, the route avoids several beauty spots and walks and is the more likely to bring genuine traffic relief to the A650 and the A629. In Keighley its most welcome feature is that the houses formerly affected in the Stockbridge area are totally avoided and only about 11 houses as opposed to 90 under the old scheme will be demolished.I should point out at this stage that support for relief to the existing A629 and A650 trunk roads and a welcome for the trunk road proposal do not in any way indicate that I support further construction of motorways or similar roads in a massive way, or that I support the views of the British Road Federation and its cohorts. It means that the level of traffic on the trunk road is too high for comfort and that some bypass, in the form of a trunk road, will be of significant benefit to my constituents in many ways.The matter was not entirely finished, however, because the trunk road was a proposal. Occasionally some Tory county councillor or some Tory Member of 1426 Parliament associated with the Aire valley would make noises about the desirability of the old motorway route and in so doing throw cold water over the hopes and aspirations of the people of Stockbridge whose houses had been blighted for so long and who had seen the blight almost, though not quite entirely, removed. Hence, I have pressed for a public inquiry to be held so that a decision on the proposal can be made.
Unfortunately, that inquiry came at a watershed in the road construction programme. While there was not, apparently, one objection to the M1, questions were subsequently raised regarding the future supply of oil, the effectiveness of the road lobby and the inroad that it had made into the Department of the Environment, so that there was a great deal of suspicion about the handling of the public inquiry and its fairness. Incidentally, recent reports by civil servants, producing attitudes of the public accepting heavy lorries, do not diminish in some people's minds that sense of suspicion.
Interruptions brought the inquiry to a halt. While I can understand the genuine questioning of the issues involved, I cannot condone the disruption that ended the inquiry and left my constituents in Stockbridge still uncertain and those at Utley, Steeton and Eastburn facing dreadful traffic conditions with no prospect of relief.
It is worth pointing out that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) raised in the House circumstances where, in another public inquiry held at Sheffield, an employer gave his workers time off to go to the inquiry and paid them wages at the hall. The employees were extremely disruptive, shouting down those who sought, quite properly, to object to the proposed extension, which many thought obtrusive and liable to have adverse environmental effects.
Disruption can be a two-edged sword. I hope, from the assurances that I receive tonight, that the Minister can show that all the questions regarding fairness and impartiality will be met at the inquiry into the new proposal for the Airedale trunk road. The latest proposal announced by my hon. Friend the Minister on 11 July last year is very close 1427 to the original trunk road proposal published in 1975. Prior to July, when the position was not quite clear, due to public expenditure cuts, I called on the Minister to clarify the situation and either end the proposal or go ahead and substitute for that proposal a series of bypasses.
This brought a public invitation to see the difficulties faced by a constituent, a Mrs. Margaret Wood, a milklady who delivered milk in the Utley area of Keighley. She said:
I am in full agreement … about the need for a new Aire Valley trunk road. I would like Mr. Cryer to come and deliver milk with me on the Utley main road, between 6.45–7.30 a.m. and see how the traffic is already building up. Talk about dicing with death. Even crossing on the pelican isn't safe. If I crossed when told to do so without checking the traffic first I would have been dead by now. Only this morning a driver went through when the lights were at red, when I was waiting to cross. And as for getting out on to the main road from Silver Grove at 8.30 a.m., there's no chance, unless some kind person lets you out. I'm sure I would save half an hour of each day, besides making my job much easier, if I hadn't all the hazards of this road to contend with.Living in the constituency, as I do, I travel on the trunk road frequently. But criss-crossing the road on that early morning in 1977 reinforced my views that some traffic relief is vitally necessary to give the people who live on the side of the trunk road some relief from the traffic noise, congestion and danger.Following disruptions at the Airedale inquiry, new rules governing inquiries were introduced—the Highways Inquiries Procedure Rules 1976. These widened the rights of objectors to require the Seccretary of State to reopen an inquiry if he takes into account new evidence or any new issue of fact 'that was not raised at the inquiry. However, this clarification and improvement in the conduct of inquiries was followed by the Leitch report, published in January last year, and in April 1978 Cmnd. 7133 contained the conclusions of a review of highway inquiry procedures conducted largely by the Council on Tribunals.
I do not think that any potential objector can claim that the conduct of public inquiries has been ignored. Indeed, it has been subjected to a most comprehensive and thorough examination. Hower, if people are to feel that their case is to be fairly examined, the recommenda- 1428 tions for improvement must be applied, and I should like to ask my hon. Friend for a number of assurances.
First, can my hon. Friend confirm his press release of July last year that the inspector appointed to conduct the inquiry will be appointed not by his Department but by the Lord Chancellor as a demonstration of the clear independence of the inspector at the inquiry and freedom from any possible shadow of influence from the Department? Secondly, can he confirm that, as a result of the Leitch committee report, revised national traffic forecasts have been adopted by his Department and that these will form the basis of forecasts and standards presented to the inquiry?
Will he confirm that opportunities will be provided to objectors to question the Department on these matters, as indicated in paragraph 26 of the report on highway inquiry procedures? Will he assure me that his Department will be prepared to provide the facts and assumptions on which the case for the scheme is based and any other relevant information which can be provided without costly special research? To this end, does my hon. Friend intend to provide effective library and information facilities shortly before and during the inquiry?
With this in mind, can he also provide space for any objectors' exhibits so that the inquiry does not take on the appearance of a Department of Transport exercise but retains the appearance of its true purpose—an examination of the factors for and against the road proposal? In addition, can he state whether paragraph 40 of the report on highway inquiry procedures will be implemented for the Airedale route inquiry—that is, a pre-inquiry procedural meeting to agree a programme for hearing objections, and especially with emphasis on the provision of evening sessions so that working men and women can get to the inquiry since their work would otherwise prevent such attendance? It would also help to give a better balance of opinion and prevent any inquiry from becoming the exclusive province of lawyers, civil servants and perhaps Rowntree Trust specialists. Will the material sent to objectors be based on the wider information envisaged in paragraph 33 of the report, including assumptions made in planning and the general planning of the road programme?
1429 At this stage I should say that the openness of the procedure has improved from the days when I pressed the then Minister to publish the notes for the guidance of inquiry inspectors, which was at first met with refusal. The position has advanced to the present situation where there is a promise to deposit the notes as part of any inquiry material. I assume that this will be fulfilled at the Airedale inquiry. Lastly, can the Minister confirm that written objections will be taken into account and will be published by the inspector and that he will include in his report views expressed by the objectors?
I have raised these questions to ensure that if the Minister confirms these points it can be demonstrated that the inquiry procedure is totally fair and above board, and that there is no ground whatever—if, indeed, there ever was—for any objector to attempt to wreck any inquiry. The wrecking tactics so far have caused delay and have resulted in a lack of certainty to many of my constituents.
I accept that some people have legitimate objections, and I am concerned to ensure that inquiries are fair. Inquiries are an important means of ensuring that all views are conveyed to the Minister through a detailed assessment, and supporters also have a right to attend an inquiry and state why they feel that a route should be preferred.
But remarks such as those reported in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus on 14 February by the deputy leader of Bradford Tories, Councillor Womersley, that objectors had blood on their hands, are a gross distortion of the position and only encourage confrontation instead of the intelligent and reasonable assessment of the road proposal that is necessary.
Councillor Womersley has, unfortunately, a record of simply trying to discredit those who oppose him, without considering matters sensibly and weighing the arguments, as he demonstrated in his attacks on proposals to preserve Temple Street Methodist church and Sunday school for use as a resource centre in Keighley. Such methods are bound to reflect to his disadvantage and to the discredit of the Conservative majority on Bradford council.
On the other hand, concern has been expressed that no details have been published on the way in which the proposed 1430 road will link up with other roads, especially at the Shipley end. In the Minister's press release in July last year he said that a further announcement would be made about the continuation of the route beyond Shipley before any inquiry was held. I have no doubt that he will wish to reaffirm that.
Some people might be taking entrenched positions, and one inquiry for the whole road might result in a concentration on the controversial areas at the southern end of the route. As an example of entrenchment, I use the example of a house that was to be demolished under the old motorway proposal but is entirely freed under the current plan. The owner of that house is quoted as saying that "They"—presumably the Department of Transport—"have not learnt a thing … the battle will be even more fierce." Certainly, under my representations the Department learnt that it was better to preserve that man's house than to crush it under a motorway.
There is a need to make a decision as soon as possible and to end the uncertainty. The £7,000 grant by the Department of Transport to Stockbridge householders to assist with the making up of private street works and the indication by the West Yorkshire county council that it is to go ahead with those works constitute a boost to confidence for the area. I am pleased that my representations resulted in successful negotiations by the Department of Transport.
We must hold the inquiry as soon as possible so that a decision can be made. It may be helpful if the Minister gives urgent consideration to the possibility of holding two inquiries or splitting the inquiry into two sessions. One could be held in Keighley to deal with the road between the junction of the existing trunk road and the preferred route near Kildwick, to the point where the proposed trunk road crosses the A650 at Crossflatts. That would ensure that objectors to the rest of the route would recognise that should their objectives be accepted and only the top half be constructed, a link could be made into the existing trunk road. In other words, acceptance of one half would not prejudice the position of the other.
The second half of the inquiry, or session, could be held in Bingley or Shipley. However the inquiry is held, if a decision 1431 is reached to proceed with the construction of the proposed trunk road, I urge the Minister to ensure that the northernmost section between Keighley and Kildwick is constructed first. That would bring much-needed relief to that area of my constituency which is threaded by the existing trunk road.
Living alongside that road must, in many circumstances, be almost nightmarish. Certainly parents of children at Steeton primary school have recently made strong representations to me about the dangers for children crossing the road to school.
I do not seek a road that will generate traffic; I seek one that will give real relief to the existing trunk road. I ask that that relief be introduced as soon as possible, bearing in mind the necessary processes that must be undertaken before construction can begin. That involves relief in the short term for the residents of Utley, Steeton and Eastburn and also for the residents of Stockbridge, who wish to see their area generated and restored and their houses returned to the open market.
In the long term, we must recognise that transport methods will change, that oil is finite in supply and that in 25 or 30 years the emphasis will swing more to public transport because of fuel usage.
In the Aire valley we have an excellent railway which is being improved. Keighley station has recently received a facelift, following long and persistent representations. However, there are means of reducing to some degree the traffic congestion in the Aire valley in the near future whilst improving what must be one of our most precious transport assets —the railway. That is an asset that many people in the current weather are finding more and more valuable.
Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to the provision of special investment grants to help generate further rail traffic through the provision of park-and-ride stations? Steeton and Silsden station is one such site, and a rail halt for Airedale hospital would also be of value.
There are other sites, such as Cross-hills, but they are outside my constituency. The 1974 Railways Act provides for grant aid for freight sidings, but specific 1432 grants for passenger facilities would be of considerable help in the context of relieving traffic and developing our railway network, rather than leaving such investment solely to British Rail or the passenger transport authority. The provision of such facilities may be at far greater cost than many realise. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that provision may be made in the transport support grant for passenger transport authorities.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving consideration to these matters. I know that he understands the problems associated with the proposed road, and he has listened sympathetically both to me and to the delegations of those affected. I hope that tonight he will give the necessary assurances so that the inquiry, or inquiries, into the road proposal may go ahead on the basis of fairness but with reasonable speed so that the 10 year saga may draw to an end in the near future.
I conclude by quoting from the report on the review of highway inquiry procedures. It sums up what is needed. It states that
While objectors must be given the opportunity of having their case fully and fairly heard, unnecessary delays which are costly to all participants must be avoided. The Government is particularly concerned that people living in the area directly affected by the road proposals should not suffer from the blighting effect of those proposals any longer than is absolutely necessary. Objections need to be fully and fairly considered but the time taken must be kept within bounds in order to reduce the period of uncertainty and blight. These two considerations may conflict. A balance has to be struck so that while all relevant objections are heard, the inquiry is not stretched out by repetition, or delayed by filibustering or disruption.I hope that that paragraph will apply. I hope that the inquiry will soon be held. I hope that it will not be stretched out by repetition or delay. I hope that certainty will be brought to an area of uncertainty that has existed for nearly 10 years.
§ 9.2 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has rightly drawn attention to the length of time that the question of a new road has been hanging over the people of Airedale. I know of his deep concern and his 1433 long record of activity on behalf of his constituents. We are anxious that matters should be resolved as quickly as possible in a calm and objective atmosphere with a clear possibility for all sides of the argument to put their case in that atmosphere.
It is appropriate for me briefly to explain why events have taken so long to reach the present stage after the abortive public inquiry that began in 1975. Much has happened since then. White Papers have been published on transport policy, policy for roads and the review of highway inquiry procedures. Further, the Leitch committee has reported on trunk road assessment.
We need to be sure that our proposals for the Aire valley are sensible in the light of the developments, especially the Leitch committee report, the highway inquiry procedures and transport policy provisions. In addition, we have been gathering more information about soil conditions in the area and considering alternative solutions. In short, we have generally reassessed the options open to us to resolve the traffic problems in the Aire valley.
My right hon. Friend discussed the Aire valley problems with local councillors from West Yorkshire and Bradford last year, after which he announced his view that a new road was the most sensible solution. Consequently, revised proposals for the line of a new road were duly published on 15 December 1978. A series of local exhibitions was held at various places in the Aire valley during January 1979 to publicise and explain the proposals. Despite the appalling weather throughout that period, attendances were good. One exhibition due to be held at Keighley on Saturday 20 January had to be cancelled at the last minute because of exceptionally bad travelling conditions. However, we are making arrangements for another exhibition to be held there before the objection period ends, as it does, next month.
I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion—it was put forward in a question earlier this year—that the proposals for the new road might be considered in sections at the forthcoming public inquiry, and that in particular priority might be given to hearing the arguments for and 1434 against that part of the route between Keighley and Kildwick.
In my answer on 25 January I explained that that would not now be practicable. The proposal has been published as such in one draft order and the inquiry must consider all objections to any part of the route. If we had to take on board my hon Friend's suggestion and there were to be two separate inquiries, we would have to republish the existing order in two separate sections. That would mean a delay of possibly three months. As we are all anxious to make progress as rapidly as possible, that would be a mistake. Therefore, it would be right to continue with our existing practice of dealing with this by means of one order and one inquiry.
However, I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety on the issues. I am able to help in one respect. Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's concern about the Keighley to Kildwick section, we have in mind, if the decision of the inspector is in favour of the road, to publish our proposals for alterations to other local roads, to footpaths, and also our proposals for acquiring land for this section of the route—the Keighley to Kildwick section—as soon as a decision is announced following the public inquiry into the main line of the road. This will enable us to get on quickly with building this part of the new road. My hon. Friend may be assured that the section about which he is most concerned—the Keighley to Kildwick section—will proceed as fast as possible, in advance of the remaining section of the road.
As to the timing of the public inquiry, we must give priority to establishing the route for the new road. We expect to start the public inquiry into this matter by the end of the year. It is too soon as yet to give my hon. Friend an exact date. There is a great deal of preparatory work still to be done. We are obtaining further information about traffic and environmental matters which has already been given to the objectors.
I note my hon. Friend's view that the inquiry should be held at the earliest practical date. I assure him that we shall endeavour to see that it takes place as soon as possible this year. However, it is likely to be towards the end of the year rather than earlier.
1435 I sincerely hope that everyone will see the value of taking the opportunity afforded by the inquiry to have a detailed and objective look at traffic problems in the Aire valley and how best to resolve them. This will be in all our interests after the frustrations and uncertainties suffered over the scheme by the people of the valley in the past few years. A repetition of the unhappy events of the last Airedale inquiry could do irreparable harm to the prospects of early relief from traffic congestion and other serious problems associated with the overcrowded roads in the valley.
I turn to my hon. Friend's points, on which he asked me for various assurances. The new inquiry will be held under the 1976 highways inquiries procedural rules and in accordance with the new procedural arrangements for inquiries introduced last year following the report on the review of highway inquiry procedures, in which my hon. Friend has shown a close interest.
Taking my hon. Friend's remarks point by point, he asked me first to confirm, as we said in the press release of July last, that the inspector appointed to conduct the inquiry would be appointed not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment but by the Lord Chancellor. I confirm that that will indeed be so. The inspector will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not by my right hon. Friends.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked me to confirm that, as a result of the Leitch committee, we now have the revised traffic forecasts which have been adopted by the Department. He asked whether these would form the basis of the forecasts in this case. Certainly they will. The forecasts with which we shall go to the public inquiry in the case of the Airedale valley scheme will be the post-Leitch revised forecasts. Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked me to ensure that opportunity was given to objectors to question the Department on matters such as these traffic forecasts as indicated in paragraph 26 of the report on highway inquiry procedures. The answer is "Yes". The objectors will be given opportunities to question departmental officials on these technical matters.
1436 Fourthly, my hon. Friend asked for an assurance that the Department would be prepared to provide the facts and assumptions on which the case for the scheme was based and any other relevant information that could be provided without costly special research. The answer is "Yes". To this end, I was asked whether I intended to provide effective library and information facilities shortly before and during the inquiry. We shall provide library facilities and other information facilities which we feel are appropriate.
With that in mind I was asked, sixthly, whether I could provide space for objectors' exhibits so that the inquiry did not take on the appearance of a Department of Transport exercise alone. Certainly we have no objection to that. Indeed, it is interesting to note that, when we put on show some exhibits in Bingley in the past few months concerned with the orders that we published in December, the objectors put on show their own exhibits on the way to our exhibits. We made no comment on that. We were glad to accept that they had the right to put their point of view just as we have a right to put ours. Certainly we have no objection at all to that if any objectors wish to do it.
My hon. Friend, in his seventh point, asked whether paragraph 40 of the report on the highway inquiry procedures would be implemented for the Airedale route inquiry—that is, whether there would be pre-inquiry procedural meetings to agree on a programme. That is absolutely at the discretion of the inspector. It is the inspector who decides how an inquiry shall be conducted. It will be for the inspector to decide whether there shall be pre-inquiry proceedings. But I imagine that, in this particular case, the inspector would want to have such pre-inquiry meetings in order to establish the ground rules concerning what was relevant in the inquiry and other matters of that kind.
My hon. Friend's eighth point was about evening sessions. That is a very understandable point, because many people cannot get to meetings in the morning or afternoon as they are working. If they are unable to attend, the meeting becomes a dialogue between often well-paid professionals. Ordinary members of the public may well feel that they are excluded from the proceed 1437 ings. This, again, is a matter for the inspector. He has absolute discretion to decide at what times the inquiry meetings shall proceed. But I imagine that he will take this point into account when making his decisions on the timing of the inquiry meetings.
My hon. Friend also asked whether the materials sent to objectors will be based on the wider information envisaged in paragraph 33 of the report, including assumptions made on planning and the general planning of the road programme. The answer is that such material will be provided on the wider basis to which I have referred.
My hon. Friend referred to a promise to deposit notes for guidance as part of any inquiry material, and asked whether this promise will be fulfilled at the Airedale inquiry. The answer is "Yes". The deposit of notes in that way is now almost standard practice in major inquiries, and it will be followed in the Airedale inquiry.
My hon. Friend also asked me to confirm that written objections will be taken into account and published by the inspector, and that the inspector will include in his report views expressed by objectors. The inspector decides what to do in this respect. Whether to publish any views put to him is a matter entirely for him. None the less, I am sure that the inspector will take into account all the views expressed to him, even if he does not decide to publish all views in his final report. It is again something that is essential for his discretion.
I think that I have dealt with all the points raised by my hon. Friend concerning the conduct of the inquiry. We are as anxious as he is, as I have indicated, that it should be conducted in a fair and open manner, so that everyone with a legitimate point of view to present can make it with absolute freedom and confidence that his point of view will be heard.
In relation to the immediate road proposals, my hon. Friend reminded me that in the press release of July, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out his decision as to the scheme that he was putting forward, he indicated that there was a need to consider what would happen at the eastern end of the route, beyond Shipley, because that is of considerable importance in the general 1438 road planning of Bradford and Leeds as well as of Shipley, Keighley and Bingley. I confirm that it is our intention to make an announcement on what is known as the Shipley-Thackley-Leeds scheme, which is relevant to what happens at the eastern end of the Airedale valley scheme, before the public inquiry takes place. As I have said, it will probably be towards the end of this year.
The results of our consultations on the Shipley-Thackley-Leeds scheme are being re-examined in the light of the decision that the M1 to A1 Kirkhamgate to Dish-forth route should go to the east of Leeds. My hon. Friend is well acquainted with that. I can assure him that the decisions reached on the scheme will be announced before the public inquiry.
My hon. Friend has been to see me twice on the important matter of planning blight, in particular in the area in my hon. Friend's constituency known as Stockbridge. In May 1977 and July 1978 I met a deputation of local residents led by my hon. Friend. It pressed for the making up of private streets and the disposal of the Department's properties in a housing estate at Stockbridge in Keighley. After discussion with the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council, the Department agreed to make an ex gratia contribution towards the cost of making up certain private streets on the Stockbridge housing estate. It was reasoned that the Airedale scheme had delayed work and caused it to be more expensive than had it been done in 1970. We were thereby agreeing to the representations of the delegation.
The Department's contribution represented the difference between the 1970 and 1978 cost, which is slightly over £7,000. The West Yorkshire metropolitan county council has informed us that it is prepared to accept the Department's offer and will give the Stockbridge housing estate scheme priority immediately after schemes already in its list, provided that the committe concerned is satisfied that there is sufficient support for the scheme from frontagers likely to be affected.
My latest information is that the council has contacted the frontagers to ascertain their view. I have no further information on when the likely improvements will start. I shall keep my hon. Friend in touch with developments. I know of his concern about the problem 1439 of blight, which is particularly acute in this case.
Finally, my hon. Friend raised the separate but equally important question of rail facilities in the Aire valley. He asked whether the Government could provide additional grants for the development of the line generally and, in particular, provision of additional passenger facilities, such as park-and-ride stations. First, he will be aware that in the transport policy White Paper published two years ago there was an additional grant for the renewal of the assets of the railway passenger business. This, in effect, changed the system whereby we gave British Rail the right to borrow money for the renewal of assets and converted it into a grant. It no longer had to pay interest, and this was sensible for its own financial operations and, as it had no interest to pay, it had more money for this purpose. We have been relatively generous on the general question of investment and development on the passenger side of British Rail, in addition to the section 8 grants and the development of the freight side.
Additionally, my hon. Friend will be aware that it is possible for the local authority—in this case the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council—if it so wishes, to develop the railway line in the way that he suggested. That can be done under the transport policy and programme procedures. Having done so, it can ask the Government for transport supplementary grant, which is granted at the rate of 70 per cent. on all expenditure agreed to.
This is a satisfactory way of taking a general look at transport in any locality. One is able to look at all sorts of schemes, whether roads, railways or parking facilities, consider them as part of a coherent plan and accordingly grant financial support. It makes it possible to plan in a comprehensive and integrated way.
This possibility has been taken up by a number of the larger urban authorities. The Secretary of State opened a new railway line in the Birmingham area which was developed under such a financial and planning framework. That is the right sort of approach in dealing with these problems.
1440 I understand that my hon. Friend wants a balanced approach—as I do—to the problems of the Aire valley. We want a balance between the existing railway lines and public transport facilities, and the provision of a road facility not for its own sake or for the sake of building roads but for the sake of solving some of the safety, environmental, traffic congestion and pollution problems which greatly trouble the people who have to put up with lorries and other traffic thundering past their front doors.
I hope that relief can be provided as rapidly as possible, but that depends on a fair and open inquiry—one in which the people have the confidence to put their points and which is not disrupted by those who seek merely to destroy.