§ Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove)I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that the processes of your Office have enabled me to bring forward this afternoon the vexed subject of conditions on the A38 through Bromsgrove and the terms of the Land Compensation Act 1973, following a meeting attended by 300 residents in my constituency last Friday.
This matter relates to the diversion of traffic as a result of the widening of the M5, particularly in a northbound direction, and the imminent opening of the M42 to traffic west as far as the A38. The A38 used to be a trunk road in the care of the Department of Transport. I regret that parts of it have been detrunked following the construction of the Bromsgrove eastern bypass and as a result the Department has shed some responsibility. However, parts of it are stilt very much a trunk road.
That trunk road was never meant to carry the volume and type of traffic that is now routed that way. The scale and duration of the diversion means that northbound traffic on the A38 south of Bromsgrove has doubled—13,500 vehicles in a 16-hour day. The diversion has lasted nine months. I am happy to say that that terminates this week. But that diversion fully justifies a fresh look at the conditions under which compensation can be claimed and traffic management measures are warranted.
I said that the diversion has lasted for nine months, but there is to be no respite because next month the M42 opens as far west as the A38 and the diversion will continue until the northern link of the M42 with the M5 is completed. That is scheduled for 1990 but that date may well slip as the land has not yet been acquired for construction and we know not whether a public inquiry with its protracted procedures and delays, may be required.
Official predictions of the volume of northbound traffic as a result of the opening of the M42 exceed the volume in the current diversion—an additional 5,000 vehicles in a 16-hour day. Many, including the highway authority, believe that the Department's predictions could well prove light because apparently they have not taken account of the construction of the Evesham bypass on the A435 —one of the main routes to the south-which will result in the diversion of traffic to the M42 to enable southbound traffic from the midlands to gain the coast and the ports. Likewise, the predictions take no account of the heavy holiday traffic that has been experienced by anyone who has used the M5.
Therefore, we are not talking of just the past nine months of damage, misery and danger. There is another four to five years of damage, misery and danger in certain prospect. The increase to the south of the M42 will be greater than the increase northbound, although there will be some temporary relief when the M42 southern link opens next year. But residents will still be exposed, like those north of the M42, to diversions when the remaining section of the M5 is widened, and that is already estimated to take a further two years at a time of increasing traffic from the M42.
It is not just a question of the volume of traffic but its speed and composition. We all know what motorway traffic is like—and the A38 has, in effect, become a motorway, but without any of the necessary provision for safety, compensation or traffic management. The residents 698 believe — and I share their view — that several things must be done. First is the issue of safety. Children must be able to get to school, and pensioners must be able to collect their pensions from Post Offices and visit day centres and clubs in safety. A crossing is needed at Lickey End and a pedestrian phase in the traffic lights at Braces lane and Stoke Heath. I have asked for that several times. The speed limit needs extension and enforcement, and again, repeated requests have been made for that at Lackey End and Stoke Heath. Overtaking by heavy vehicles moving at speed makes turning in to or out of a drive a real hazard. Double white lines are needed.
All those measures may not be justified by the Department's criteria on a permanent basis, but five years — the period from 1985 to 1990 — seems a lifetime. Indeed, nine months has been almost a lifetime to the residents. The removal of those measures could be considered later if necessary, when and if the traffic returns to normal volume and composition.
It is not simply a matter of life and death — the quality of life is very much in issue. The noise, especially at night, the vibration and the dirt, make life a misery. Vibration has caused cracks in ceilings and windows and some residents claim that mortar has been dislodged and garden walls damaged. The residents naturally feel entitled to compensation and protection by double glazing, without having recourse to expensive litigation which some of them can ill afford.
Compensation is not available under the terms of the Land Compensation Act because roadworks have not been carried out along the frontage of the properties affected. Only a few houses in the vicinity of the Marlbrook traffic lights could benefit. But this diversion is the result of roadworks—the widening of the M5. The increase in traffic will come from roadworks—the opening cif the M42.
When consultations were held prior to the enactment of the Land Compensation Act, the effects of diversions and traffic management measures were raised as suitable grounds for compensation, but it was decided to omit them initially while the operation of the new provisions was studied. The results are plain for all to see on the A38 through Bromsgrove. Diversions and increases on such a scale and for such periods must surely merit compensation.
The dirt to which I have referred does not affect only the washing on the line and the windowsills in the front rooms. One look at the condition of plant life in the verges causes fears about a health hazard, with particular mention of lead deposits. I believe that we should conduct a pollution survey to dispel the fears.
It is not just a question of life itself or of the quality of life, but of the value of property and the blight which has been induced. The traffic diversions and increases have resulted in a property blight on the area. Families are finding it extremely difficult to move away from the danger and nuisance to which they are exposed. They find it increasingly difficult to move away to take up new jobs. They are also concerned about the diminution in the asset value of their homes, which also has an effect on their ability to move.
The residents are therefore, naturally, seeking compensation for the loss in property value or for some assistance to enable them to move for the purposes that I have described. Many of them work night shifts and need their rest.
699 I realise that the rating question is outside the Minister's responsibility. There certainly seems to be a case for a reduction in rates, but that of itself will not remove the property blight.
It may seem as though the residents have presented a long catalogue of woes in a whining and complaining manner. That is far from true. Since many of the people involved drive vehicles themselves they accept the need for progress, for motorway construction and for easier access for our goods, and so that people from the Midlands can reach the coast and the ports. However, they feel that the period for which they are required to suffer damage, misery and danger is beyond all reason. They might have survived the past nine months without complaint, but the prospect of another four years of misery appears to them to be unsupportable.
The staff of the county surveyor have always been most helpful in trying to meet the genuine anxieties of my constituents. I am grateful to them and to my hon. Friend the Minister and his staff who have also responded as sympathetically as they are able, but who are apparently tied by bonds that I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to loosen.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) is one of the forthright, assiduous hon. Members who leave Ministers in no doubt about the needs of their constituencies and their constituents. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about the Department of Transport staff both in London and in the regional office and I am sure that his words about the county surveyor's staff will be much appreciated by them.
In a balanced, though rightly intolerant, speech, my hon. Friend has asked me to review what is going on. It would be unwise of me to say either that there is a prospect of an immediate change in the law or that no further measures might be taken. The purpose of the debate is to ensure that I look for every opportunity to meet the needs of my hon. Friend's constituency. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do so.
As my hon. Friend said, there is joint responsibility for roads. The county council is responsible for detrunked roads and there are guidelines for safety measures that can be taken for pedestrians. It is vital that those guidelines are kept to, within reason. Road users subconsciously appreciate dangers on the roads and develop a subconscious sense of road craft while formally obeying traffic directions, road signs and so on. If motorists discover inconsistent treatment, whether in pedestrian crossing arrangements, speed limits or other provisions, we shall end up with more accidents, injuries and deaths. There is a point in sticking fairly rigidly to the guidelines and regulations.
I will make sure that as traffic develops, albeit temporarily—I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but even four years is temporary in our terms, though I concede that his constituents would not accept that as a proper use of English—the Department and the county council ensure that justified further measures are not only considered, but, where possible, responded to as sympathetically as is reasonable.
700 I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his balanced words about the need for roads. I recognise and share his ambition for improvements, not only for the relief of through traffic that they bring for residential communities, but for the economic benefits brought by these improvements to the infrastructure, or what the Prime Minister and I normally call better roads.
I have been reminded that my hon. Friend and my predecessor discussed investment plans for roads in the west midlands some years ago. I am pleased that they are now coming to fruition. Since 1979, there has been increased spending through the trunk road programme, with increased spending of 30 per cent. in real terms on national roads and with expenditure on the programme for renewing older motorways being nearly doubled. The national road programme was almost exactly halved in real terms between 1973 and 1979–80. I sometimes wish that those who call for more infrastructure spending would look at the recent history books and see how well we are doing now compared with the regime of the International Monetary Fund.
In the past six years there has been investment of £4 billion, £3 billion of which has been on new construction. That is a signifcant investment for Britain. My hon. Friend will not need reminding, because of his purpose in raising the debate, that the west midlands has had a considerable share of the growing cake.
In September 1985, the Umberslade section of the M42 was opened—the first new section of the M42 since completion of the Solihull section in 1977. In December 1985, the Water Orton and Kingsbury sections of the M42 were opened. The Lickey End and Alvechurch sections of the M42 will be opened soon. This will amount to 32 miles of motorway opened in the west midlands during the past nine months. We are going on with widening and reconstruction of the older motorways.
My hon. Friend's constituency is both suffering and benefiting from much of the work on the M5 which is under way or is scheduled for further improvements. The M5 is being brought up to dual three-lane standard. We must be aware that the traffic is with us and will continue to grow. Conditions on the A38 will not improve without improvements on the M5 and the M42/M5 junction which are in hand. I do not think that there is any disagreement either in my hon. Friend's constituency or between us that the work is necessary. But as my hon. Friend said, there is genuine dissatisfaction with the arrangements for the interim.
Anyone with any sensitivity would be conscious, as we are, of the tremendous impact of the new road construction on those living nearby. Particular problems are associated with the widening of the M5. It requires diversion of traffic on to the A38 and other local roads during the widening and reconstruction period. I think that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that those difficulties were recognised at an early stage by the west midlands regional office of the Department of Transport which launched a major public-awareness campaign. The intention was to explain the work and the need for diversion and temporary closure. It rightly concentrated on safety during the work both for road users and for the staff of contractors. There was a commitment to minimise disturbance to local residents. I am sorry that it is not possible to divert traffic to places where there are no local residents, but that is one of the facts of life.
701 Motorway users are encouraged to stay on the M5 until otherwise directed. My hon. Friend pointed out that traffic had to be diverted from the M5 for considerable periods. There has been co-ordinated publicity through national and local media, and we are grateful for the help of the police, local authorities and the motoring and road haulage organisations.
I think that I need not go through a list of the diversions. If my hon. Friend would like some more information so that he can share it with his constituents and road users locally, I shall happily write to him. If I have not managed to deal with some points, either I shall pick up the omission or my hon. Friend might like to remind me next week of them, and we can go further in this continuing discussion.
An intrinsic part of the works has been the extensive improvements carried out along the A38 and other local roads where necessary to cope with the additional traffic diverted from the M5. I doubt whether all of them will become effective without some pushing and prodding from my hon. Friend.
The improvements carried out on the A38 amount to £600,000 of work, and £350,000 has been spent on other local routes. It might help to give the House some examples. My hon. Friend has already mentioned the installation of traffic lights at Marlbrook crossroads and Birmingham road. There is also the improvement of the capacity of the A38 junction and the Lydiate Ash junction. There are improvements at Canal Bridge, Warndon, and right-turn lanes have been marked at various locations. My hon. Friend should not forget either the pelican crossing at the Barley Mow.
The overriding aim has been to minimise delay to traffic and disruption to local residents. Frankly, it is impossible to be totally successful. As my hon. Friend said, the increase in traffic flows while the diversion is in place gives him and his constituents cause for concern about safety. Many of the tragic news headlines during the past week or so emphasise the need to do everything possible to ensure that our vehicles and roads are safe, and to give as much attention as can be justified to individual safety work. I sometimes feel that I have more responsibility in this job than the Home Secretary had in the days of capital punishment. when death sentences could be commuted. The plain truth is that we have what appears to be an acceptable level of violence—which is unacceptable to me — which amounted to 5,209 road deaths last year. That total is unacceptable, even though it is the lowest for about 30 years.
We must ensure that money is spent on things that are likely to produce the greatest return. Instead of talking 702 about road safety improvements after people have been killed, we should anticipate the need and evaluate the work that perhaps should be done. But I can dwell on that when we have another road safety debate, following the excellent debate that took place a year ago.
We are sadly aware of the disturbance experienced by residents living along the A38, who are inconvenienced by the extra traffic. They are suffering in the short term—although I suppose that if one is looking at four years, it is in the medium term—but they will enjoy long-term benefits when all the work on the M5 is complete. Some residents will benefit earlier than that. It depends on the location.
I shall not deal in detail with the extent and scope of the construction works. But from a technical standpoint, there have been remarkably few closures on some of the roads that can provide relief from the diverted traffic. However, I can understand that that may be a matter of opinion, depending on where one lives and which roads one is trying to cross.
I could give my hon. Friend information on the current situation, but given his liaison with the county surveyor and the regional office of the Department of Transport. he will be up to date on most events.
§ Mr. Hal MillerI live there.
§ Mr. BottomleyObviously, my hon. Friend has personal experience of the situation, as he works for his constituency and lives there. His experience has, indeed, given force to his remarks. He has rightly summarised the compensation position. I cannot speak about enforcement, just as I cannot speak about temporary rate reductions, but I shall ensure that his remarks are passed on to those who have responsibility for such matters. I hope that he will tell his constituents that I sympathise with them because they live on a busy road. Will he assure them that I understand that they are very inconvenienced by the temporary increased traffic flows? But it was only as a result of representations such as his that the original compensation arrangements came into effect. It would be a brave man who said that they would never change. But I do not want to start defending them. I can assure him that, sadly, they are unlikely to be changed sufficiently quickly to affect financial compensation, other than through the possibility of rate reductions.
I will pay personal attention to this matter and see what I can do as Minister for roads and traffic. No one could have put the case as well as my hon. Friend, and, if there are further improvements, I suspect that they will be the result of his work.