§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
10.10 pm§ Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)This debate is entitled on the Order Paper "Roads in Manchester". I am glad to have the opportunity to point out to the Minister that that is a misprint. It should have read, "Roads in Greater Manchester". The Minister will know from private conversations that roads have been the subject of a great deal of controversy in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members. I refer of course to the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, a subject with which the Minister has been made familiar over several months.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the wrong wording of the title was unintentional on my part, and that the courtesy that I have extended to him covers the point. I want to avoid being accused of the same devious tactics that the Department of Transport has practised thus far in this sorry affair.
The Greater Manchester western and northern relief road has caused great anger, partly because of the nature of the beast and partly because of the secrecy surrounding its promotion. The Minister and others have drawn attention to so-called leaks of information about possible routes. They have accused activists of blighting property and they have tried to draw a series of red herrings across the debate. I shall try to generate more light than heat by raking over the embers of this unfortunate tale.
The relief road first appeared in the public domain as a schematic dotted line that ran through the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" in June 1989. During the following summer recess, my studies of the document got me worried about the dotted line, which dissected my constituency through its most sensitive environmental part—he village of Worsley in particular. In short, it put a line through a conservation area.
I set about tabling a long series of parliamentary questions in the hope of finding out the Department's intentions. The answers to those questions were models of civil service-speak. Although answers were given, they were, in the now hackneyed phrase, given with a degree of economy with the truth. What I found most unacceptable was the notion that, while a £300 million relief road was in prospect, the widening of the existing M62 was the principal focus for Department of Transport planners. It was only when the existence of the A556 improvements came to my attention that the scale of the problem for my constituents became apparent. This is where the major deception arises.
I have never been given a satisfactory explanation by the Minister or his predecessor of why a major motorway should be planned in three distinct phases. I cannot escape the conclusion that it was done to deceive the public. That became clearer to me when I discovered that the first section, the M6 to the M56, which was billed as an improvement to the A556, went out to public consultation as long ago as 1 November 1989. People believed that they were being consulted about a localised road improvement scheme. They were not disabused of that view and it was not until January 1990, when my parliamentary questions became public knowledge, that the Department of 113 Transport's real intentions were recognised. The tactic became clear and later in my speech I shall deal with its subsequent refinement.
The strategy was to prosecute the plan in three stages. The southern section was to be first, followed by the northern section. Then the middle section, which affects my constituency, was to be built. As soon as the two outer sections, dealt with months apart, were determined, the controversial middle section would have had its start and finish thoroughly circumscribed. Thankfully, with the cat well and truly out of the bag in January 1990, opposition groups sprang up all along the route and they are now conducting an intelligent and energetic campaign of opposition to the Department's intentions. My thanks and those of my constituents are due to councillors Davies and Stirling, who are leading forces in the Residents Against the Motorway group, and to Chris Gray, Ian Bailey, John Spink, David Cowpe and Bob Boyd who are working in various ways to present local opposition to the destructive intent of the Department. Their efforts deserve to be placed on the record and I am pleased to do that.
Having dealt with the secrecy and duplicity of the Department, I now turn to the question of need. My view, which is shared by many, is that the motorway that the Department is keen to promote is entirely unnecessary. If the £300 million, which will no doubt be more than doubled by the time of completion, were to be given to the local authorities to enable them to organise their own traffic management schemes, one justification would be removed at a stroke. At the same time, it would help if the Minister were to invest through local authorities and the passenger transport executive in decent 21st century public transport.
It might make more sense if the Minister's colleague further down Marsham street, the Secretary of State for the Environment, stopped the crazy building of peripheral housing schemes to be filled with city commuters. It would certainly be more sensible if sites closer to city centres were made more attractive. That would breathe life into decaying urban areas and obviate the need for millions of car journeys a year. That, in turn, would prevent the vandalism that is being proposed and which has already caused so much anguish.
I have been asked many times recently, "Why more motorways?" Why put at risk what little remaining woodland and open space we have in the north-west? What has happened to the Government's professed adherence to green policies? The Minister is better placed than Ito answer those questions, but it is my view that the problem of motorway demand' lies firmly in the Department of Transport which is gripped by roads mania. The Department has 12,500 road planners and only 125 public transport planners. No wonder the solutions are always to build more roads.
These new roads and the extra traffic that they are supposed to accommodate will cause serious damage to the local and global environment and they will undermine any pretence by the Government to promote environmental protection measures. The full forecast of traffic increase will be generated only if the roads are built. I reject the need for this road, as do most of my constituents. Experience of the past 20 years or more tells us that this type of motorway will significantly injure the amenity of the area.
Experience tells us also that the Department of Transport is an extremely slippery customer in its dealings 114 with the public. I have to refer only to the confidence trick that has been played on, and added to in dealings with, residents in the Farm lane area of my constituency. In the early 1960s, a bypass was built to avoid Eccles and Swinton. It was known always as the Eccles bypass. Over time plans changed or there were additions. That happened to such an extent that a fairly insignificant piece of road became part of the M62 trans-Yorkshire motorway. My constituents in the Farm lane area were never compensated properly for that construction, which took place by attrition. A bitter taste remains that will be significant in the battle to stop the latest piece of motorway madness.
I return briefly to leaks, information and disorientation. It is sad that much of the public knowledge of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road has had to he gained through leaks. It is my duty, however, to puncture the official secrecy that exists, on whatever pretext that may be.
I freely admit that the latest piece of information does not affect my constituency, but it bears on the way in which the opposition is engaged. It is no secret that the protest groups to which I have referred are in regular contact. It is no secret also that each of them obtains information from a variety of sources, with sometimes surprising results. The latest piece of information is no exception. It seems that the consultants have produced an alternative route in one part of the northern section of the road. I understand that it includes a bizarre proposal to cut and cover through a neighbouring town.
I am interested in the politics that has led to an alternative route. I am certain that it involves an exercise in dividing the opposition. The intention is clear. The plan is to divide communities as much as possible all along the route and so dissipate the objections. This will not work. Throughout the route every constituency and every threatened part of each constituency contains a growing protest movement. The opposition is becoming more proficient and it seeks the same success as that which was enjoyed by objectors in London. The Minister knows about that because he represents a London constituency. After 10 years of struggle, massive motorway proposals were ditched, possibly for electoral reasons.
I shall conclude by posing four questions, which I hope the Minister will do his best to answer. First, when will the promised consultation with the public take place? Secondly, will there be an environmental impact assessment study? Thirdly, will the public be given choices of routes, and a further choice of no motorway at all? Fourthly, will the Minister contemplate my suggestion of improved public transport and local traffic management investment?
§ The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope)I am pleased that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has given me the opportunity once again of returning to the subject of transport and road infrastructure in Greater Manchester. I am disappointed that he has exemplified in his remarks his belief in the great conspiracy theory, in the dubious tactics of the Department of Transport, in secrecy, in disorientation, in duplicity and in confidence tricks. Those are all terms and 115 words that the hon. Gentleman used. They demonstrate that the hon. Gentleman is given to a certain amount of self-deception on those important issues.
I shall remind the House, including the hon. Gentleman, that the proposals for a Greater Manchester northern and western relief road are still at an early stage. The leaks that have taken place have been counterproductive in creating much unnecessary blight. The hon. Member was present on 17 December when I responded to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber this evening. Obviously I have to cover some of the same ground that I covered then because the two constituencies are almost adjoining and are served largely by the same road network.
The major roads within the Worsley area are the M63 and M62 motorways, which together form the western section of the Manchester outer ring road. However the M62 fulfils a dual purpose. As part of the ring road it provides a route between the major centres of population in the Greater Manchester area. In addition, it forms an important link across the Pennines, connecting the three conurbations of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and west Yorkshire. The route occupies a fundamental place in our transportation network, carrying high volumes of traffic with a significant proportion being goods vehicles. This need to satify two discrete functions—as a long distance through route and as a more local distributor—has led to poor conditions for traffic, which are continuing to deteriorate. Delays, frustration, congestion and accidents are, I regret, far too commonplace.
The hon. Member for Worsley referred to a spurious analogy with the assessment studies in London. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in assuming that I represent a London constituency—I used to have the privilege of leading a London borough. The problems of ensuring that through traffic is taken out of London were resolved by the establishment of the M25, which is the largest and most effective bypass anywhere in the country. The roads that we are discussing in this debate fulfil a similar function around Manchester, at the same time enabling vehicles to travel from the Manchester conurbation and Merseyside across the Pennines to Yorkshire.
I have much that I could say about other issues in Manchester, but it is appropriate that I come to the principal issue which the hon. Gentleman raised, which was the M62. Our major study into the trans-Pennine route and the need for further capacity to relieve the M62 is well known. We expect to receive a consultant's report in the spring and an announcement will be made as soon as we have had the chance to consider the report's findings and recommendations.
§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)As my hon. Friend knows well, I am strongly opposed to all these planned motorway routes and am extremely concerned at the delay taking place in this consultation process and any inquiry which may be necessary. Many of my constituents find that their homes are completely blighted as a result of the route through the Whitefield part of my constituency, and, as the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) said, another route is proposed through Radcliffe. Can my hon. Friend give me any assurance about when the consultation process will take place so that my constituents will know 116 where they stand and also when there will be an inquiry if that is necessary? Until then my constituents cannot sell their homes and are facing the gravest possible difficulties.
§ Mr. ChopeWe have not yet reached the stage of a consultation, because we have not yet published any proposals. Certain potential proposals which were being discussed on an informal, tentative and confidential basis with local authorities were leaked. As a result, they have been given a spurious authority which they should not properly enjoy, which has led people to think that there should be an early consultation.
My Department only consults on specific proposals, and it only brings forward proposals after the most careful consideration. It is only after such consideration that we can make clear proposals, after which I promise my hon. Friend that we shall consult on them as quickly as possible.
§ Mr. LewisDoes not the Minister accept that 33 organisations—not just local authorities—were consulted? That is significant because some of us know where the leaks came from, and they did not come from local authorities. Does not the Minister also accept that as soon as "Roads for Prosperity" was understood—followed by a report on roads that gave more detail about it—whole districts became blighted? In my constituency, Worsley village became totally blighted because those two documents could be interpreted only as sending a brand new motorway through a small area that was already well and truly covered by motorways. Does not the Minister accept that proposition?
§ Mr. ChopeI do not accept that proposition. In "Roads for Prosperity" we stated our view that a new road was needed in the district. Consultants were then appointed to think about the proposals which, when properly considered by my Department, would, if deemed appropriate, be brought forward for public consultation. But the hon. Gentleman should recognise that many ideas for new roads are never brought forward for public consultation. If, prior to the plans being rejected without seeing the light of day, the public had seen them, that would have caused an enormous amount of unnecessary anguish for people who would have thought that their properties were threatened by them, even though the plans were never brought forward for consultation.
It is not for me to question the hon. Gentleman's motives, but he may have political motives. The consequence of premature disclosure of information put forward on a confidential basis—a system that operates effectively throughout the country—has resulted in much blight on the homes of people living in the district, which I very much regret.
The announcement on the consultant's report of the trans-Pennine route will be made as soon as we have had a chance to consider the report's findings and recommendations. Those are not expected to affect the case for undertaking improvements to the M62 or for the proposed Greater Manchester western and northern relief road. It is important to make that clear at the outset.
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, we are just completing works on the M62 at Worsley between junctions 12 and 14. That is major resurfacing work, needed to repair a motorway that was simply worn out. I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in recognition of that fact. The road is worn out because it is so heavily used 117 by traffic. That is a sign of the pressures on the present motorway network in the Manchester district, which has some of the oldest sections of motorway in the country.
The proposed improvements to the M62 between junctions 12 and 18 are an interim measure only. They will not deal with forecast traffic growth. The relief road is designed to supplement, not replace, the M62 which, along that section, carries 130,000 vehicles a day. That amount of traffic is comparable with the busiest sections of the M25. In addition, completion of the outer ring road will not obviate the need for a new road. Constructon of the final section from Denton to Middleton will have no significant effect on flows on the M62 west of junction 18, and so will not affect the need for the relief road.
The hon. Gentleman attacked the Government for investing in new roads, but he is as aware as anybody that his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has been campaigning for the early completion of the circular motorway round Manchester because he knows that, by investing in that motorway, much-needed relief will be given to his constituents. That confirms the odd attitude of Opposition Members to investment in new roads.
§ Mr. ChopeNo, I shall not give way.
We must look closer at the options for widening, particularly in the Worsley area, and to what extent that work may be accommodated within the general limits of the existing highway. We shall then determine what form any consultation about the widening should take. I hope to be able to make an announcement on at least part of that work later in the year.
The high levels of traffic to which I have referred are the result of increased levels of economic activity and prosperity. Traffic flows are predicted to grow by up to one third by the end of the 1990s and could well double by 2020. A responsible Government must face those forecasts and respond. Congestion reduces the efficiency and reliability of road transport for industry, and increases costs to consumers. It is also harmful to the environment, as slow-moving vehicles burn more fuel and therefore give off greater quantities of harmful emissions.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government are interested in not just investment in roads, but investment in public transport and its infrastructure. In Manchester we already have good examples of that investment in practice with the metrolink and the construction of the second terminal at Manchester airport with its new rail link. The metrolink is the first, new street-running rail system for three decades and the 118 Government are proud to be contributing more than £50 million to it. Manchester airport is Britain's third largest after Heathrow and Gatwick.
§ Mr. LewisWe should be thinking about the next phase of the metrolink now. Some of us believe that that system should be brought out to places such as Worsley, as that would save a lot of unnecessary car journeys.
The M62 is worn out at the specific junctions to which the Minister referred because of the old specifications that were used. If we intend to reline and resurface motorways to new specifications, they should be adequate to deal with the existing levels of traffic.
§ Mr. ChopeI am glad that the hon. Gentleman is already thinking ahead about further development of the metrolink. It is unrealistic to think that such investment could be a substitute for investment in the major road artery between Merseyside, the Greater Manchester conurbation and west Yorkshire. No one would be forgiving of a Government who ignored the obvious trends of increased traffic in that area and did not try to find a solution to that difficult problem. The Government recognise those problems.
We do not yet have proposals for the new road that we can submit for public consultation. Once proposals are published for consultation purposes, there will be ample opportunity for people to visit exhibitions, ask questions and give their views. I again give an assurance to the House that no firm decision on the scheme will be taken until public consultation has been held. That consultation process gives people the earliest practicable opportunity to have a say in the development of the scheme. We put great value on the views presented at this stage, which is in addition to the statutory opportunities for public input that will arise later. It is at that later stage, when orders are published, that statutory rights of objection may lead to consideration of the scheme at a local public inquiry before an independent inspector.
It is only after the Department's most careful considerations that we submit a draft route for public consultation. It is only after the most exhaustive procedures that we finally decide on a route. The hon. Member for Worsley and his constituents and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South and his constituents will have ample opportunity to participate to the full in that detailed consultation process
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.