§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
11.43 pm§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)I am glad to have this opportunity to debate the subject of road and rail communications in north-east Lancashire. I am pleased that I am joined in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). With your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the Minister, it may be possible for him to speak if I sit down at about 11.54 pm.
I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, in the Chamber, who is also concerned about this issue, as well as the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves).
The general title of this debate relates to the transport infrastructure of north-east Lancashire. I shall mention two issues — the public bus and railway services, and the completion of the M65 motorway from Blackburn to the M6 and M61 south of Samlesbury. That is a major issue of contention in the area.
The buses White Paper which was published last week shows that just under four out of 10 households in the country as a whole lack access to a motor car. In north-east Lancashire that proportion is higher. In Blackburn and Burnley, for example, exactly half the households do not have access to a car, and in Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale the proportion is only a little smaller.
I hope that the buses White Paper is reconsidered for the folly that it is. It will spell a serious curtailment of bus services in rural areas. That is evidenced by the appendix to the White Paper, which shows that in the experimental areas of Hereford, Devon and Norfolk, the privatisation and liberalisation had led to a curtailment of rural services. It will disrupt the municipal undertakings in the area. Each borough, with Pendle and Burnley combined, runs effective municipal undertakings. The White Paper will also pose serious difficulties for bus and coach builders, including the east Lancashire coach builders in my constituency. They have already had to shed 30 jobs and their future is difficult.
My second massive worry is about the railway service. East Lancashire is intersected by two railway services—one runs from Preston through Blackburn to Colne, and the other is a connecting service from Blackburn to Manchester. Both are vital commuter links and social services. They still use diesel multiple units, which were first introduced in 1959. Anyone who travels on them regularly knows that it feels as if they are 25 or 30 years old and they are well passed their useful life. Because they are clapped out, the timing of the services on those routes must be extended. That means, for example, that, whereas before the new timetable was introduced in May, 17 of the daily services from Manchester connected at Blackburn with trains to Accrington, Burnley and Colne, now only 10 do and the other seven arrive often two or three minutes after the train from Blackburn has gone.
We will no longer accept it if the problem is shuffled off to British Railways. The Minister holds the purse strings for British Railways. We need urgent decisions to replace those diesel multiple units, and a pledge from the 288 Government—they also control this decision—that those two vital lines will have a long future and will not be subject to serpell cuts.
An even more controversial issue is the full completion of the M65 motorway. The promise to build a motorway along the east Lancashire corridor from Colne through Nelson, Burnley, Accrington and Blackburn to connect with the M6 and M61 south of Preston was made in the late 1960s in response to deep anxiety that that sub-region would suffer if and when the central Lancashire new town, based on Preston, Leyland and Chorley was built. There was also anxiety that because other areas in the north-west had their transport systems improved, if north-east Lancashire lagged behind, it would be at a disadvantage. It was agreed that the M65 should be built from Colne to the M6 and M61. There was a great debate about which route it should take, especially whether it should go north through the centre of or south of Blackburn. That was finally resolved by a decision to route it through the south of Blackburn. It was announced by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Bill Rodgers, in 1977.
I was present at a meeting between all the Lancashire Members of Parliament on 4 July 1979 and a junior transport Minister, now the Minister for Health. The Minister was pressed to pledge to continue the construction of the M64 through to the M6–M61 south of Preston. The Minister told us, as was repeated in a press statement issued after the meeting, that
The previous Government had given the M65 a high priority and he would continue to give it the same priority.At that meeting there was no suggestion that the route would be curtailed just east of Blackburn. In April 1980, in answer to a question from me, the Secretary of State for Transport, now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, announced that the section between Blackburn and the M65 and the M6–M61 would be cancelled. That caused, and has continued to cause, great consternation throughout north-east Lancashire, but no more than within my constituency. It means that the key link in the chain connecting that motorway to the national motorway network has been cut. That has serious implications for industry in the area. They are so serious that the north-east Lancashire development association has received well over 100 letters from major industrialists complaining about the disadvantage that would accrue to the area if the link continued to be cancelled.My constituents face the prospect that within a few months the motorway will finish at Whitebirk just to the east of Blackburn and all the motorway traffic not just from east Lancashire but coming down the A59 from north and west Yorkshire will pour into residential areas of Blackburn and through the Brownhill roundabout, which is already inadequate, and will then have to make the journey between the Moat house, formerly the Saxon and the Trafalgar inn at Samlesbury on a wholly inadequate, dangerous single carriageway road.
The residents of Blackburn and north-east Lancashire felt betrayed by the former Secretary of State, given his colleague's pledge to treat the route as a high priority. No one in north-east Lancashire has accepted the decision. Everyone agrees that it is unacceptable that the motorway scheme should be cancelled, and believes that it must go ahead.
We have had numerous meetings with the Minister of State, and I commend the fact that she has taken a considerable interest in the scheme. We look forward to 289 a positive response as a conclusion to her interest. The Minister was good enough to come to Lancashire in December 1982. I believe that she was deeply impressed by the case that was then put forward. That was followed by a detailed inquiry by Harold Yeadon, the Lancashire county surveyor. His report, which I have and which runs ino many pages, suggested that overall it would be more costly for the Government to go ahead with the cancelled scheme than it would be to include the motorway. The sum involved is £4 million, the difference between £56 million and £60 million. That takes account of the fact that if the motorway scheme does not proceed many more roads would need improvement than would otherwise be the case. It showed also that the level of traffic on the residential and main roads in the Blackburn area would be intolerable.
Since 1 December 1982 there have been further meetings. The Minister has met further deputations and she has said on a number of occasions that she hoped to make a decision soon. I shall not embarrass her by giving the number of times on which she has said that, and the number of times that the deadlines have passed.
In a recent reply in the House, the Minister rather ominously said that other areas in north-east Lancashire had a higher proportion of motorways than the country as a whole. That may be true, but it is no comfort to north-east Lancashire. If it is true, it places north-east Lancashire at a greater disadvantage than would otherwise be the case.
We need the road. It was promised 15 years ago. It was re-pledged by this Conservative Administration in July 1979. The case for the scheme is overwhelming. It is needed for industry, for jobs, and to prevent misery, unhappiness and danger to the residents in my constituency. I urge the Minister to give a positive pledge to ensure that the scheme is built, and built soon.
§ Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for calling for the debate, and for giving me a few minutes in which to support the case that he so ably made.
The two aspects on which I want to concentrate are the rail service and the M65. I am sure that the bus issue is one that the House will debate fully over a period of time because of the controversy that will arise from the proposal announced in the House last week.
It must be remembered at all times that the proposal for the M65 to be linked to the M6 and to the M61 has the full support of all local councils in the area, and is not a matter of political division. The fact that not only two hon. Members on this side of the House support the case, but that the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) are present for the debate is indicative of the support that the measure has. I know that my predecessor, Mr. Dan Jones, fought for improved road links to Burnley long before the suggested motorway when the proposal to construct the road was originally made in 1969–70. I am aware that the time schedule proposed for that motorway link has run out. It was originally evisaged that a motorway from Colne to the M6 would be completed by 1978; and, of course, that time has long since passed.
This proposal is supported not only by the political parties and the local councils but by industry and the north-east Lancashire development association. In north-east Lancashire, communications are vital to our economic and industrial survival. We ask the Minister to take that vital 290 factor into account when reaching a decision. We are out on a limb in north-east Lancashire. The people in that area, who led the industrial revolution and played such a vital part in the country in the last century, have shown adaptability in transferring to new industries and, indeed, in transferring from the new industries that came in in the 1950s to yet another phase of new industries. We need the motorway if the new industries are to continue to come in and provide the employment that we so badly need.
Another important aspect is the enterprise zone project which is supported by a number of councils in the area, including Pendle, Hyndburn and Rossendale, a project which is based on the concept of the motorway. That is an important factor to take into account.
There is a great need for an improvement in the railway network in north-east Lancashire. From Burnley, the service to Preston is only one train an hour which takes over an hour, and it is a difficult journey. I am sure that no Minister of Transport with a choice would ever travel the last 20-odd miles to Burnley by rail if that could be avoided. We have one slight disadvantage as against my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn in that from Burnley there is no direct service to Manchester, so that one must change at Blackburn. In the middle of the day, some trains take over two hours to travel the 20-odd miles from Burnley to what is the regional capital of Lancashire, which is deplorable. There needs to be an improvement in the rail service, and completion of the M65. I hope that, when the decision is reached—and we keep hearing that this will come very soon—it will be a favourable one.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)I am grateful to the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for their contributions to this important debate. I think that they both know already that I regard this as an important subject.
The hon. Members mentioned buses and, although I do not wish to dwell on that aspect, I should point out that in recent years there has been a continuation of policies that have led to increased fares, reduced services and increased subsidies. That policy cannot go on.
Experience in trial areas is that deregulation has not led to major cuts in rural services. On the contrary, those areas have done rather better than comparable rural communities outside the trial areas. New initiatives come forward when buses are freed from regulation. Enough of buses for tonight.
The hon. Members for Blackburn and for Burnley mentioned the problems of rail travel. The hon. Member for Burnley told us how difficult it was to get from Burnley to Preston and Manchester. We fully accept that many of British Rail's diesel multiple units are approaching the end of their working lives. However, BR has plans to renew the entire fleet over the next few years and is working on that investment. Since the beginning of the year, we have approved investment in 150 lightweight rail buses and 100 medium-weight DMUs, together worth nearly £50 million.
Those vehicles are for BR's provincial services, though it will be for BR to decide where they will be used. I know that BR is concentrating such vehicles on the sort of provincial lines of which the hon. Members have spoken.
291 I know that BR wishes to have further DMUs built in the near future. I assure the hon. Member for Blackburn that the Government will do their bit to help to create the modern and efficient railway that our people want.
Talking of efficiency brings me to timetabling. I do not deny that there have been problems since the new timetable was introduced on the east Lancashire line, in changing at Blackburn for services to Manchester. British Rail has received a number of complaints about those connections and has made adjustments to the timetable to overcome the problem. Revised times have been publicised in the local press and will be included in the October supplementary timetable. British Rail has already responded to an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
British Rail has recognised that the connections to Preston are not good enough and the 1985 timetable will include a number of adjustments designed to improve those connections for people using local services to and from Preston and wishing to change there to the west coast main line. Neither BR nor the Government intend to excuse the operational difficulties that have occurred, but BR is putting them right.
I should say to the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Burnley and to my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), who are also present, that since 1982 much time has been spent on considering links from Blackburn to the M6 and the M61. I have been listening to the arguments of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the construction of the green route would confer great benefits on north-east Lancashire. I am sorry that I cannot give the House a decision tonight. I do not think that the hon. Member for Blackburn expected that, but he wanted a progress report and hoped that my "soon" might have arrived. I know the importance of the timing.
We know that completing the connection to the national motorway network, fostering the expansion of existing industry and encouraging the development of new industry has merits. However, there is a contrary view of the link with the motorway system. A decision is needed without further delay to remove the uncertainty and the understandable local concern. I apologise, but it is an important matter and the decision either way has far-reaching consequences.
The alternatives are rather more finely balanced than the hon. Member for Blackburn gave us to understand. The many representations to me, both for and against, show a finer balance of the argument. That is why the discussion of the elements involved is taking longer than the hon. Gentleman would wish.
The case for the green route rests upon a number of factors, which have been expounded. It also stands or falls on the justification for it in terms of the traffic that it will attract away from other routes and the economic benefits that it will confer. The study of traffic and economic considerations has involved a great deal of work. We have had to go back to the county council to obtain an explanation of some of the figures in its excellent report. It has had to amplify some of the work. Those results are being carefully considered.
My Department has done all it can to speed up the process. I do not hold my officials in any way responsible for the time that it is taking. I genuinely feel that we should take a little extra time now and ensure that we reach the 292 right decision. I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman wants. The green route, as I am sure he accepts, is an expensive proposition involving a massive injection of capital into an area that has already benfited considerably from roads investment—even if that part of Lancashire does not have the road it wants yet. I cannot make any decision lightly.
I welcome the debate because it allows me to say a word about the future. I accept that the construction work on the Department's final four-mile section of the M65 Calder valley motorway between Whitebirk and Hyndburn is going extremely well. It is scheduled for completion in the middle of next year. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn will welcome that.
The construction of the Accrington easterly bypass, southern section, is also proceeding and will complete the final stage in the construction of a high standard north-south route between the Calder valley towns and Greater Manchester conurbation and the M62 motorway. Already, plenty is happening, but what is not happening is the decision about Blackburn going westwards towards the M6.
The opening of the 5.5 mile Hyndburn to Burnley section of the M65 and the extension of the Lancashire county council's section of the M65 between Brierfield and Nelson means that there is considerably easier traffic in those areas. It highlights the difference when we reach Blackburn. That investment must be borne in mind, especially now that the north-south link is going ahead in relation to the total amount of resources available. That has not made me cease to look at what needs to be done. I would be failing in my task if I did not tell the hon. Member for Blackburn that the Brownhill roundabout will have to have attention, whatever the decision on the green route, but how it is done must be decided in conjunction with the decision that must be made.
I know that there is anxiety about the forward plan for the A677–A6119 improvement. I want to set the record straight. There is no doubt that if the green route goes ahead, we would need to reassess our plans for the northern route between the M65 and the M6 at Samlesbury. We are convinced that improvements will be needed at the roundabout junction at Brownhill. There are serious present-day problems, which have existed for many years, and we cannot expect the traffic just to go away, especially after the M65 to Whitebirk opens next year.
My Department has been discussing the appropriate answer with Lancashire county council. We have also involved Blackburn borough council. I hope that, for that roundabout, we can find a mutually agreed solution. We want to publish some firm proposals as soon as possible so that we can test public opinion, have a local inquiry and take a final decision about the form of the urgently needed improvement at that junction.
As for any doubts that remain locally, I confirm that for Brownhill we are thinking in terms of a single-level junction. The plans which were around some time ago to build a flyover have been scrapped. I can give the hon. Member for Blackburn that assurance, which he will welcome.
I have mentioned the timing of the Brownhill improvement. I hope that, with the local councils, we can get on with the statutory procedures and complete the public inquiry by 1986. If the green route is to go ahead, it will be necessary to review the proposals that we have 293 recently been developing for comprehensive improvements to the remainder of the A677–A6119 route. We shall, however, wish to look at other junctions on that route to see whether we can do something modest to enhance their use and reduce accident spots. In particular, we need to look at Samlesbury.
The Lancashire county council report on the green route, which we have been studying, compares the Department's present proposals to upgrade the existing road with the proposal to construct a new road along the lines of the green B route. We are grateful for that assessment, as I have already said. It has highlighted the environmental problems associated with the Department's current northern strategy and its implications for consequential work on both trunk and county roads.
294 The report is a well-argued and well-presented document, and in coming to our decision I shall take into account the county council's case, the case that the hon. Members have made tonight—and the points that have been made by several of my hon. Friends, two of them present tonight—about the the importance of getting better links from Blackburn across to the M6. I do not want anyone to think for a moment that we shall not be considering every aspect of that, including all the traffic implications in that part of Lancashire. That is what we are doing now, and I hope very shortly to reach a conclusion.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.