HC Deb 15 November 1979 vol 973 cc1635-52 9.39 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Following the Adjournment subject raised a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), I might be tempted to talk about the railway system and how it affects my constituency, especially the town of Macclesfield. Fortunately, unlike the hon. Gentleman who raised the subject, I have no good cause to do so, since the inter-city Manchester-London line, upon which Macclesfield is situated, is not threatened with closure. I personally am proud of the service that British Railways provides from my constituency to London. I only wish more of the inter-city trains stopped at Macclesfield and Congleton, but I can no doubt raise that subject with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on another occasion. However, I have sown the seeds of that idea in his mind.

In the previous debate my hon. Friend indicated that British Railways now had a golden opportunity to capture more of the travelling market because of the increase in the price of oil. I hope that British Railways will take up that challenge and provide the services that can meet the needs of those who commute or travel to our major cities, particularly those who do so on business. Many of my constituents travel very frequently indeed from Cheshire to London.

Tonight I raise the subject of the Macclesfield North-South road, otherwise known as the Macclesfield relief road. This has been around for a long time—long before I ever became Member of Parliament for Macclesfield in 1971. In fact, the history of road proposals in Macclesfield goes back more than 40 years, and the area that I represent has probably had less spent on roads than virtually any other area that I can think of.

My hon. Friend is aware of this from all the questions that I have put to him and from the informal discussions that we have had. In addition, I am sure he will know of the meeting that I had at his Department this afternoon with the chief executive of the Macclesfield borough council, Mr. John Sandford, the chairman of the planning committee, Councillor Michael Livesley, and the chairman of the highways committee, Councillor Jack Thompson. My hon. Friend is more than aware of the problems that face Macclesfield at this time because of a totally inadequate road network.

It is true to say that the Ministry has apologised to me in recent months for the delay in replying to genuine representations that I have made on behalf of my borough, and in particular on behalf of the people of the old Macclesfield borough. My borough is a progressive one. It sought to involve the North-West office of the former Department of Transport in a joint participation exercise relating to future planning, industrial developments and road projects in the area. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to the Ministry at that time, the officials were not happy to take up that offer of joint participation. Therefore, a golden opportunity was lost for the Department and the local authority to become involved in planning the future of my area. It is for that reason that a number of the problems exist between the borough and the Ministry of Transport.

As I have said, this particular problem goes back more than 40 years. The people of Macclesfield have been very patient, but their patience is beginning to run out. There is now real urgency not only for a road project to be approved in outline but for the orders on the line of route to be laid. If a public inquiry is necessary, I hope that as soon after it as possible the construction of the road will begin.

The borough and town of Macclesfield lie equidistant between the Greater Manchester conurbation and the North Staffordshire conurbation, otherwise known as the Potteries. Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware of the heavy volume of traffic that passes through the borough of Macclesfield. The roads in the town are, in the main, very old. They were not constructed to take the quantity, let alone the weight, of traffic which goes through Macclesfield today.

We have the huge articulated lorries going south from Manchester. There are those which perhaps get on to the M6 just south of Stoke-on-Trent. We have the huge stone wagons from the quarries in Buxton in Derbyshire, just over the eastern Cheshire border. We have the usual heavy volume of commuter traffic. There are also tankers from the chemical works at Runcorn and the southern fringes of Manchester.

The people of my area have had to take a growing and an increasingly difficult volume of traffic in recent years. The position has now become intolerable. The environment of the residents of Tytherington in Macclesfield has been put in jeopardy by the growing volume of traffic. Coare Street in Macclesfield is a narrow street which, until a few months ago, was almost a backwater of Macelesfield, but the attempt to solve some of the traffic problems of the borough has resulted in this once quiet street being turned into a main through road. The very attractive terraced property in this area—Macclesfield boasts a great deal of it—is beginning to suffer, not only as a result of the fumes and the noise but also because of the vibration set up by many of the heavy vehicles which are passing within three or four feet of these Victorian terraced houses.

These houses, sadly, no longer look particularly smart outside, although it is only right to say that they are little palaces within, and the rather dull exterior masks a very attractive interior. But these houses will begin to run down if something is not done very soon to remove the traffic from this road. This was, indeed, one of the first problems that I raised, when I was elected in the autumn of 1971, with the Minister in the appropriate section of the Department of the Environment. At that time, as the Minister knows, there was no separate Department of Transport.

I have mentioned the residents of Tytherington and of Coare Street. There are also the residents of Beech Lane and of Chester Road—again an area of very nice terraced property—whose environment is beginning to suffer as a result of the increasing volume of heavy traffic going through the centre of Macclesfield. The residents of Oxford Road are also affected. I raised this matter on another occasion in this House because the sewer in Oxford Road in Macclesfield collapsed. This was very shortly after the major collapse of the Oxford Street sewer in Manchester.

Macclesfield, like Manchester, grew up during the Industrial Revolution in this country, and much of the infrastructure has never been replaced or improved since those days. Macclesfield will need considerable Government funds unless the road problems facing the borough at this time are dealt with urgently by the Ministry.

I mentioned earlier that unfortunately the Department of Transport in the North-West had not taken part in the joint participation exercise which was mounted by the officers and elected members of the Macclesfield borough council. As a result, the opportunity was missed to collect a great deal of the information which could have been useful to the Department in deciding how quickly to proceed, and what line to take for the North-South road.

If the Department had participated, it would have appreciated that certain industrial land on the existing Hurdsfield industrial estate is presently land-locked. The new road would go a long way to releasing this land for industrial development in the town of Macclesfield, thus attracting new business to the town, which would bring investment; and, as we all know, investment brings employment.

Whatever party he may represent, a Member of Parliament has a duty to do what he can to maintain a high level of employment and to ensure that the level of unemployment is at a minimum in the area that he serves.

This road is vital in order to release certain industrial land which could be so useful to the future development of Macclesfield. Additionally, it would release a limited amount of residential development land—and there is considerable demand for housing in my area. By providing Macclesfield with a speedy and correct decision, the Ministry of Transport would be not only serving the interests of my constituents but also greatly improving the local environment.

It would be unfair to say that the road which I ask the Minister to provide for my area will not be objected to by some residents because of the impact it will have upon their environment. I am very sympathetic to the desire for a rural environment, and I am aware that the north end of the Macclesfield road will undoubtedly have an impact on those who live adjacent to Flash Lane north of Macclesfield in Bollington, and also on a number of those who live in most attractive Cheshire stone cottage property in Clarke Lane, Kerridge, which is also just north of Macclesfield.

I hope that at any public inquiry, if that is necessary, the complaints put forward and the objections placed before the inspector or, perhaps, my hon. Friend will be dealt with sympathetically and fully. At the same time, I make it perfectly clear that the proposal for the road must go through for the benefit of the area as a whole.

After much pushing, much correspondence and a number of parliamentary questions prior to the Summer Recess, my hon. Friend published, on 19 October this year, the new proposals for the Macclesfield relief road. When we met at our party conference in Blackpool he indicated to me that he thought I would be delighted with the announcement he was about to make. Indeed, I was delighted until I read half-way down his press release where it said: The easterly route will now be developed in more detail leading to the publication of Orders under the Highways Acts. In the course of settling the precise route, the Department will also be considering whether the northern end of the road should be in the Beech Bridge area instead of at Flash Lane as previously proposed. My heart sank when I read that, because instinctively I realised that one of the major objectives of the road would be lost if it were shortened.

As I have indicated, the road is scheduled to pass up an old railway line, which is now closed, and the rugby club land which lies on one side is already owned by the Ministry of Transport. If the road were shortened, it would not serve the industrial estate, and one of the main purposes of the road, which is to take the heavy volume of industrial traffic out of the town centre, would be lost. In the brief discussions which I had with the deputation from my borough at the Minister's office this afternoon, this point was highlighted. It is absolutely vital that this road proceeds and goes the full length from the centre of the town to Flash Lane. If it does not, the heavy traffic will continue to use the same old road and the environment of Macclesfield will continue to suffer.

I am aware that the Government seek to curb and restrain public expenditure, and quite rightly so. No doubt Labour Members will claim that there are always exceptions and that every hon. Member thinks that his constituency case is one such exception. I do not readily make that claim even though I advance it tonight. However, I must point out that we have been waiting 40 years for a road, and that is no mean time. Bearing in mind the extent to which Macclesfield has expanded in the past 20 years and the fact that there are overspill estates from Manchester established around Macclesfield, I think that my claim is justified. There are also two industrial estates established in Macclesfield—including a major one—which generate traffic, not just heavy commercial traffic serving the factories but commuter traffic.

Many of my smaller residential estates have suffered dramatically as a result of the establishment of these industrial estates. Small, narrow roads that are completely unsuitable for motor vehicles are being used as through roads by those on the industrial estates. It is a miracle that youngsters living nearby in the terraced houses have not been killed. Most of these terraced houses do not have gardens, and the front doors open straight on to the street. The mothers cannot always watch their children. They must sometimes let them have a breath of fresh air. If these youngsters walk straight out into the street, there is a real danger from heavy traffic. It is a blessing that no children have been killed. We have had some serious accidents but up to the present time, touch wood, no lives have been lost. This is more by chance and Divine providence than by good management.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates the strength of feeling in Macclesfield for this new road. I make a plea that the Ministry should disregard the Beech Lane spur and should heed the strength of feeling in the borough, as well as the opinions of Cheshire county council and the Federation of Commerce and Industry locally. This opinion is entirely against the shorter route, which would defeat so many of the good purposes for which the road is required.

I know that the Ministry of Transport must carry out a cost-effective exercise to see what can be justified on economic grounds. I have advised my hon. Friend of limited additional residential developments which will inevitably result if the road is constructed to its full length as originally proposed. Also, there will be considerable industrial development if the road is constructed to its full length.

At the moment, much property is being scarred and is suffering as a result of fumes, noise and vibrations. If the road is constructed, this property will be saved and maintained to a satisfactory standard. I believe that the proposals that the borough hopes will be forth- coming from the Department are the right ones and can on every ground be justified. I should be amazed if the cost study came to the conclusion that the road could not be justified. I should want to go into the figures in detail if that were the result of the study.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield, East)

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned restricted roads and a great deal of traffic. Has the local authority carried out lead pollution tests? Is lead pollution a serious factor? There are some high levels of lead pollution in the lanes and roads in which children play. I think the hon. Gentleman knows of the levels of hyper-activity that are related to high levels of lead pollution.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Mr. Winterton

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) for his intervention. It almost enables me to make another speech. However, I shall resist that temptation.

There is no doubt that many of those who came to live in Macclesfield, and many of those who have lived in Macclesfield for many generations, have never until recent years been subjected to the traffic nuisance that they now experience. I have referred to the noise nuisance and to the vibration nuisance. Inevitably, there is the danger of lead contamination. We know of the harm that can be done to the human body by lead contamination and pollution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's argument has registered with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It is an argument that must be added to those that I have been putting before the House.

The road is vital for the interests of my constituency. And I am grateful to the Minister for arranging at quite short notice to meet the deputation to which I have referred. I regret that, because of the strange way in which the House operates, it was necessary for the deputation that I took to the Ministry in Marsham Street to have a limited time given to it. That was because the Minister had to be in his place in the House for the presentation of a Bill. However, the chief executive and elected members of the borough council who were members of the deputation are grateful to my hon. Friend. They believe that in the short time that he was able to give to them they were able to put to him the main points as they see them for the need for the longer version of the road.

My hon. Friend may say to me that the £1.8 million that will be needed to build the additional piece of road that I so strongly urge upon him is a great deal of money. If we take into consideration the growth of Macclesfield and the wealth created in Macclesfield for the area and for the country, the investment is modest. It may ensure that Macclesfield will be able to make a greater contribution to the wealth of the area and to the wealth of the country generally than hitherto.

I indicated earlier that Macclesfield is a major conurbation equidistant From Greater Manchester and the Potteries conurbation. It is the major industrial town between Greater Manchester and the Potteries. It cannot continue to serve the community and to provide jobs unless it has adequate road communications. It is a pity that the area did not benefit from some of the magnificent road projects that were constructed a few years ago in Lancashire. I suppose it is possible that, if the area had so benefited, its wonderful rural environment might have been spoilt to an extent. The local plan and its success and the county structure plan that has come before the Secretary of State for the Environment indicate that the road is a vital organ in the success of all the development that is planned in the area that I represent.

I repeat that it is a pity that the Department of Transport was not available to participate in the joint exercise mounted by my borough council. Like hon. Members, borough councils are inclined to take all the slings and arrows but come in for little praise, although there are exceptions. My borough council set out to improve the area, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to help Macclesfield.

Speed is of the essence. When the cost exercise has been carried out by my hon. Friend's Department, I hope that without delay he will publish the line orders. I hope that a public inquiry will not be necessary, but if objections are received from individuals, rambler associations, civic trusts or from such bodies as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England I hope that they will be dealt with quickly and that the inspector will be instructed to take evidence and reach a judgment as swiftly as possible.

There is no point in protecting a limited section of the environment only to destroy irretrievably large sections of an extremely attractive old Cheshire mill town. The Minister must of course listen to objections, but the overwhelming local view is that the road is required.

The Minister should not consider the shorter version. That would defeat the main objectives of the proposed road. We want the full route.

I do not often come to the Government with demands for public expenditure. I am one of many Conservative Members who believe in sound money and in our communities and companies paying their way without huge Government handouts.

The people who live in Macclesfield and the companies that operate there—ICI is one of the larger and there are many textile companies that go back over the generations—have made great contributions to our economy. Macclesfield deserves a road network worthy of the twentieth century and not merely of the eighteenth century and the Industrial Revolution which generated the development and expansion of Macclesfield. We have moved to keep up with the times. Sadly, the roads in my constituency and particularly in the old borough have not kept pace. The people and the excellent buildings are beginning to suffer a heavy burden and cost.

I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible. If a public inquiry is necessary, the inspector should consider all the representations as quickly as possible, and the Department can then come forward with a route—and I ask for the longer route because I am concerned for the future of Macclesfield.

10.8 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

I am happy to turn from the problems of the railways at Bishop Auckland to the roads in Macclesfield. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) introduced the subject of lead pollution and lead in petrol in a debate on motor-cycle safety in the Adjournment debate two nights ago, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not deal with that subject also this evening, although at some time it may be a suitable one for an Adjournment debate. It may be a suitable subject for debate, but it should be kept until we receive the report of the working party, which the DHSS will have to consider.

The medical problems of lead in petrol will have to be considered in the light of any evidence to support the fears about its effect on children. My Department has carried out studies on the practical problems of lead in petrol and the effect, in terms of performance and consumption, of reducing the lead. We are reducing the level of lead and holding it to the level of 1972. Despite increases in traffic, we are not allowing it to rise above that level. If there is evidence to support the fact that damage is being done by the present level of lead in petrol or in the atmosphere of crowded roads, the Government will not hesitate to take quick action.

Tonight we are discussing the problems of Macclesfield. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I am extremely familiar with the problems of that town—in particular, the inner relief road. That familiarity is almost entirely due to his efforts in urging upon me the case for decision and progress on the relief road. Since I came into the Ministry my hon. Friend has been extremely persistent in pressing his case by correspondence and questions. Before the Summer Recess he tried to gain parliamentary time on the Consolidated Fund Bill to raise the subject. He was defeated because, even in the small hours of the morning, time ran out on that occasion. He followed that up with a parliamentary question and induced me to promise, in my reply, a decision on the matter by September.

We met at the party conference and my hon. Friend lobbied me about my failure to produce that decision. I told him then that I hoped shortly to produce a decision of which he would approve. I now find that he approves of my decision in part but has strong reservations about one feature. I am grateful that he brought his deputation from Macclesfield to see me. He has represented to me the strong public opinion of Macclesfield. He has now raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in order to put his case on the record and to strengthen it again.

I have a map in front of me of the plans for the Macclesfield inner relief road. I feel that I know most of it intimately. The result of my hon. Friend's lobbying has been to concentrate my mind on the subject considerably. When I announced the preferred route on 18 October, I hoped that he would be happy with that. He now informs me that there is a problem, and I hope to be as helpful as possible in answering his complaints and forwarding the plans for the inner relief road.

One of the first things that my hon. Friend brought to my attention was the age of the project. He tells me that it goes back 40 years. I can trace the matter back to a town plan of 1958, which is only 21 years ago. However, there has been lamentable delay. Public exhibitions were held in 1973 which led to nothing. The project was lost in a round of public expenditure cuts and the work made little progress thereafter.

When my hon. Friend first pressed the matter upon me, he complained about the delay and said that the Department had not responded to invitations to take part in a public exhibition that was held by Macclesfield in connection with the town plan. There was lamentable delay on that occasion and I have apologised to my hon. Friend about that. We also tried to see what could be done to get something moving. There is considerable pressure for a solution to the problem, as my hon. Friend has said. The traffic problems in Macclesfield are intolerable and the case for relief is strong.

On 18 October I announced a decision choosing between the two possible routes that a north-south road through Macclesfield might follow—an eastern inner relief road or a western bypass. My hon. Friend described the two lines of blight in the middle of the town because of the years of indecision about which route to take. He confirmed that he believes that the large majority of his constituents will approve the choice of the eastern route. That is the one that we have chosen. That is the preferred route. One immediate achievement, as a result of my hon. Friend's pressure and, eventually, our decision, is that the blight that had been lying upon the previous possible route for a western bypass has now gone. Future land use in that area will be unaffected by any fears of a road scheme. A preferred route, the first stage in the statutory processes, was announced on 18 October. Once a preferred route has been identified, there are various statutory protections against blight so that those who live along it can require my Department to buy their property from them at market prices if they have difficulty in disposing of it because of the road plan.

The preferred route includes the full stretch from Mill Lane through the centre of Macclesfield going out to the north, to Flash Lane. This is the route that my hon. Friend pressed upon me. It also included, as an option, a possible shortening of the project by putting in a Beech Bridge link, taking, unfortunately, part of King's school playing field, but shortening the whole road and going into the main Manchester road for the northern exit from the town.

I thought that my announcement would please my hon. Friend. He has left me in no doubt that he does not appreciate the inclusion of the Beech Bridge option. He has assured me again tonight that matters would be greatly improved in Macclesfield if that option could be removed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

The borough council at a recent meeting clearly indicated its view that it was opposed to the Beech Bridge spur and wanted the full length of road constructed as proposed. My initial reaction to his welcome decision that the eastern option was the one to be supported by his Department is supported by the elected representatives of the Macclesfield borough council.

Mr. Clarke

I regret to say that I have not been to Macclesfield. I have relied heavily on my hon. Friend for indications of likely public reaction in the town. This seems to have been proved right. I note what my hon. Friend says about the resolution. The councillors and officials whom he brought to see me this afternoon confirmed what he says.

Macclesfield borough council plainly feels as strongly as he does that the Beech Bridge link will be unpopular in Macclesfield and will have unfortunate effects on the development of the town. I would like to explain what this announcement of the preferred route, with the link that my hon. Friend does not like as a possible option, amounts to. Once a preferred route has been indicated, there is statutory protection for property blighted and work proceeds on deciding the precise route and layout that might be followed.

What happens now is that work will be done updating traffic forecasts, surveying, in more detail, the precise route and layout, and paying regard to the Department's updated traffic forecasts and the Department's present design standards for roads of this kind. At the end of that process, draft statutory orders will be produced, indicating in more detail the line of the road that we propose to build. After that review, the draft orders will no longer contain an option between two routes. I will eventually take a ministerial decision on which of these lines to produce the draft orders. The decision will be influenced very much by what my hon. Friend said about public opinion and about the development of the town.

The decision also has to be influenced by a sensible and rational analysis of the cost benefit of the scheme. Modern road building and road planning is not the automatic process that some fear. Among the issues now to be considered are sophisticated methods of relating the economic cost of a scheme and variations of a scheme against the likely benefits to the community, both environmentally and in terms of avoiding waste of traffic time and assisting industrial and other traffic to get along our main arterial routes. That is the process to be gone through before a decision is taken whether to produce draft orders. Once draft orders are produced, these will be our detailed plans for the construction of the road.

There will be a set time within which objections may be made. If there are objections, there will be a public inquiry, where the whole matter can be considered. As my hon. Friend said, there are bound to be some who say that there should be no road and others who argue about the route. All those arguments can be canvassed before an independent inspector at a public inquiry.

In deciding what draft orders should be put forward for consideration at a public inquiry, I shall be considering economic analysis, environmental problems and the strong representations of my hon. Friend and the borough about the preferred route. In a way, they all come together. I am grateful to the delegation today not only for putting its strong views on behalf of the borough but for explaining in detail some of the queries about possible developments along the line that might be chosen that would influence not only the traffic flows and forecasts but the economic advantage of the proposed longer route.

I appreciated the opportunity of considering with members of the delegation the position of the Hurdsfield industrial estate and their strong views about the effect of the northern extension to Flash Lane, facilitating the proper movement of traffic in and out of the industrial estate.

I was interested to hear about the likely position at Tytherington, although that is subject to litigation and planning procedures. I am told there is a possibility of some limited residential development. That will have to be decided in the forthcoming procedures. If there were such development on that side of the Manchester Road, that would have an effect on the scheme in respect of the traffic that might be carried along the Manchester Road rather than the northern extension. All these factors—the traffic position in the town and the nature of the road out to the north of Macclesfield through Tytherington—will be of great assistance in evaluating the scheme and moving on to the production of draft orders.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

In order to substantiate the view expressed by the borough council and myself, may I read and ask for my hon. Friend's comments on an editorial opinion in the Macclesfield Express on Thursday 8 November headed "No Relief"? It reads: Whoever finally made the decision that Macclesfield's pie in the sky ring-road route should be changed again (this time to commence at Beech Lane bridge) has not only extended this unbelievable saga by a few more years but has effectively altered the prime objective of the route—to be a relief route. Admittedly, this latest idea will still by-pass the town centre but the snarl-ups at Tytherington will be there. And with ever increasing housing in Tytherington"— to which my hon. Friend referred— a great big school slap bang where the access is planned and traffic on the up and up, the decision seems even more incredible. There is one good point about it, however, and that is blighted property may be reprieved—but until a decision is made one way or the other, then the relief for owners is not there. So many words have been spoken, so many written, about this sad road that there is little left. Opinions differ, but the majority agree that a relief road is needed. Over the years it has chopped and changed so much that were it not so serious a matter the whole thing would be a joke. To an extent, I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the local paper, reflecting local opinion, also supports the relief road project that I have urged upon him.

Mr. Clarke

That underlines my hon. Friend's argument again. With his assistance, I have been trying to stop it being a joke. I have been trying to reach some decisions and to get on with producing a definite scheme so that Macclesfield may know where it stands.

We have got rid of the western outer bypass. No decision has been taken to put it through Beech Lane bridge. It has been put up as an option. I have taken on board that it is an unpopular option. Engineering work and appraisals have to be done. I shall be producing draft statutory orders setting out one line and that will then be submitted to a public inquiry.

My intention throughout, in response to my hon. Friend's urging, has been not to prolong the whole matter by years. The great failing of many road schemes—this appears to be one of them—is that uncertainty about line, controversy for and against, the general misfortunes of public expenditure, and so on, lead to years of indecision, delay, blight, and damage to property values.

I hope that I have forwarded matters. If clarity has not so far produced exactly what my hon. Friend requires, I trust that when I make my next decision the result will be clarity. I will bear in mind everything that my hon. Friend says and see whether I can be justified in coming to the decision that he would wish.

My hon. Friend asked when the road would be built and about resources. Every estimate that I give about the building of a road—I am sure that previous Ministers have been in this position —is subject to the statutory procedures. Objectors have their rights. An inspector may be persuaded that a road is not required. People must be allowed a hearing. Building is also subject to the availability of resources and at the moment the whole trunk road programme is subject to review in the light of the recent statement on public expenditure for next year and beyond.

The trunk road programme has not been savagely cut, but transport expenditure must take its share of cuts. We must consider the timing of schemes so that we can choose the right priorities and fit them into resources for the coming years. While the review is in progress, it is of no assistance to my hon. Friend or, indeed, to any other hon. Member for me to try to put a date on a scheme of this kind.

The Government's White Paper on public expenditure generally will emerge in the new year. That will give the public expenditure forecast for the next few years, and my Department will follow that up as quickly as possible with its own White Paper on roads. That will spell out the implications of public expenditure planning for trunk road programmes for the next few years. Although we have not yet completed the review, I expect that we shall be able to gain from it some useful and reliable dates for schemes, subject to the statutory procedures. At that stage I shall be able to give a clearer indication of the availability of resources and likely dates of construction.

I cannot promise my hon. Friend that building will be immediate. The current review will not lead to schemes being abandoned, but their timing will certainly be affected as we work through our priorities. My hon. Friend can be reassured that his efforts over the last few months have left me in no doubt about the strength of feeling in Macclesfield and in no doubt of the lobbying that I shall receive from him and his constituents if they feel that Macclesfield continues to be neglected.

We have had a close look at the route and at the traffic priorities in the area. I hope that eventually I shall succeed in satisfying my hon. Friend, in part at least, and that, with assistance, we will achieve some progress, so that the people of Macclesfield will see that their traffic problems are being given serious consideration by the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.