§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
2.30 pm§ Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing)I fear that this week I am not the favourite son of the Department of Transport—perhaps not in any week—because yesterday I voiced my concerns about the Department's rail policies as they may affect my constituents and today my attention is directed to roads with special reference to the widening of the M20 between junctions 3 and 5. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is in his place, has, I am sure, a glowing account in his brief of the Department's conduct of that widening scheme. I shall start by giving him a view from the Tonbridge and Mailing end of the telescope.
The Department's critical mistake occurred when the scheme was announced in the May 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity". The announcement was not accompanied by any detail of how the scheme would be carried out. As a result, the maximum possible blight was created. The Department should have carried out its own internal design work. If it had done so even a relatively cursory examination would have led it to the conclusion that it eventually reached—that the widening scheme would have to be carried out essentially within the boundaries of the existing line of the motorway as it is heavily built up on both sides. If the Department of Transport had announced that at the outset, the incidence of blight would have been fractional compared with what has taken place.
Having announced its intention to widen without specifying how, the Department found that it had to serve hundreds of statutory blight notices along the length of this section of motorway. Following the service of those notices the Department acquired, or is in the process of acquiring, about 300 properties along the motorway. At least three quarters of those properties would not have been acquired if a different procedure had been followed. As a result I estimate that about £25 million of taxpayers' money has been unnecessarily spent.
I referred that expenditure to the Comptroller and Auditor General and I am glad to say that Sir John Bourn is currently examining the Department's handling of public money in connection with this widening scheme. I look forward to his conclusions. Unhappily that is not the end of the story and the acute difficulties continue, because the Department is trying to get its money back. It is trying to get its money back by securing vacant possession of the hundreds of houses that it now owns and, by getting vacant possession of houses that are the subject of short-term lettings, it is creating a serious homeless problem which has considerable ramifications for the local housing authority.
I sincerely hope that lessons for the future have been learnt from that scheme. One lesson that I beg the Department to learn is that when it proposes widening schemes in future, they should be done on a basis that minimises the statutory blight created.
My hon. Friend will be aware that when statutory blight is created, particularly if it is on a large scale, secondary blight will often be created alongside the area of statutory blight. That is exactly what has happened in my constituency. Those living immediately adjacent to the 1316 blighted area find it impossible to sell their homes because people are understandably reluctant to buy property immediately adjacent to many properties owned by the Department of Transport—properties which may not be well maintained and in which maintenance standards may be falling, and property that is all on short-term lettings.
The Government have dealt with the problem in their Planning and Compensation Act 1991. I wish to make a positive comment on that point. My constituents were afraid that the Secretary of State for Transport would not make proper use—or would make no use whatever—of his discretionary acquisition powers under section 62. I am glad to say that that fear has proved to be wholly unfounded and, as I know from the written answer that I received earlier this week, the Secretary of State has now authorised the acquisition of 18 properties under section 62 and is considering acquiring a further 32. Therefore, he is dealing in a proper, compassionate and sensitive way with some heart rending cases of people who are facing chronically health—in some cases terminal illness, mental breakdown, marriage breakdown and so on—and who have been unable to move house when they were desperate to do so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue to exercise his discretionary powers in a compassionate and sympathetic way with the remaining cases.
I wish to put four specific points to my hon. Friend. The first is in the critical area of homelessness that is now being created by the Department of Transport endeavouring to get vacant possession of those hundreds of houses now in the Department's ownership. The difficulty being created is the difference of legal view between the Department of Transport and the housing authority under the Tonbridge and Mailing borough council regarding the statutory homeless position that has arisen. I have raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, in a recent letter to me, said:
it is by no means certain that displaced tenants will necessarily place a rehousing liability on the local authority even if they apply to them for accommodation".The legal view of the Tonbridge and Mailing council—a view shared by the Housing Corporation and officials within the Department of the Environment—is that some statutory liabilities under the homeless persons legislation will certainly fall on the Tonbridge and Mailing borough council. They will be short-term rehousing liabilities and, almost certainly, a degree of long-term responsibility for rehousing. That being so, I would regard it as unacceptable if central Government sought to stand aside from the homelessness problem and its financial implications for which they are wholly responsible.Central Government, through the Department of Transport, created the blight in the first place. Central Government acquired the houses, and have decided to let them. Central Government have sought vacant possession of the houses and have asked the tenants to go. Those tenants are left facing homelessness as a result. It is fairly and squarely a central Government responsibility and, in my book, it is also fairly and squarely a central Government financial liability. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the starkest terms that I expect central Government to discharge their financial responsibilities towards Tonbridge and Mailing borough council.
Secondly, there were difficulties with the management of the properties in the early stages. A small minority of unsuitable and disruptive tenants were put into the 1317 Department of Transport houses. I thought that those management difficulties had largely been overcome, but I am not sure that they have.
I recently received a letter from a constituent complaining strongly about the menagerie of animals being kept by the Department of Transport's tenant in the adjacent house. I took it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When he replied, he confirmed that four dogs, one of which had to be put down as it was dangerous, and two hunting ferrets had been kept in the property. My constituent, who lived next door, had a nine-month-old baby and both the dogs and ferrets had been escaping into her property. I do not think that it is particularly satisfactory to have a nine-month-old baby and ferrets close together, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will look closely at the need to tighten up and get a grip on the management of the large number of Department of Transport properties.
Thirdly, when the road widening scheme was originally announced in 1989, Department of Transport officials said that they hoped that the scheme would be completed before the channel tunnel opened in 1993. We are now only a few months away from 1993, and nowhere near even starting the construction of the road widening scheme.
In 1991, my hon. Friend's predecessor, Mr. Christopher Chope—who is sadly no longer a Member of Parliament —said that it was hoped to start construction of the widening scheme in 1995, and to complete it two years later. Is it still intended to start construction in 1995? I earnestly hope that it will start soon, particularly as I have many constituents with a legal case for injurious affection compensation against the Department of Transport under the Land Compensation Act 1973 for depreciation in the value of their houses caused by the scheme. Under the provisions of that Act it is not possible to secure compensation until one year after the new highway scheme comes into operation. Therefore, the longer the delay in commencing the scheme, the longer it will take my constituents to receive compensation to which they are legally entitled.
Fourthly, I raised the environmental aspects of the widening scheme in the two previous Adjournment debates on the subject that I have requested. When I raised the matter in the debate on 17 January this year, the then Minister, Mr. Christopher Chope, assured me:
the road will be constructed to a very high standard and the most modern noise attenuation measures will be included in the scheme."—Official Report, 17 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 1291–92.]I warmly welcome that commitment, but may we have more detail on how it will be discharged? As I said, the road passes through residential areas and noise quietening will be of the utmost importance.In June, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport urging that consideration be given to the use of porous asphalt for the surface of that section of the motorway. By mid-October, I had not received a reply, and so wrote him a further letter. I do not know whether he has replied in the past day or so, but, to the best of my knowledge, no such reply has yet reached me. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister has an answer for me this afternoon. I hope that the Department will consider 1318 seriously the use of porous asphalt. It is a quiet and safe material, and I warmly welcome the Department's change of policy in relation to its use
Can my hon. Friend give me any more details today about what form of
most modern noise attenuation measureswill be use in connection with the widening scheme, and an assurance that, when those measures are developed and ready for discussion by the Department, there will be full and proper consultation with the local authority and local people?I seek four specific assurances from my hon. Friend. First, I seek a clear assurance that central Government will discharge their financial responsibilities towards the housing authority in relation to the inescapable homeless persons expenditure that will follow from the Department's gaining vacant possession of the properties alongside the M20. Secondly, I seek an assurance that the management of the properties will be tightened up—and, I hope, improved. Thirdly, I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an assurance about the timetable and an assurance that the widening scheme will be proceeded with as quickly as possible so that my constituents can gain their injurious affection compensation. Finally, I hope that he will assure me that the earlier commitment that the
most modern noise attenuation measureswould be adopted will be fully implemented.
§ The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle)I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on securing this Adjournment debate. The fact that it is his third such debate shows his care for his constituents, his deep concern about the matter and his determination that we should pursue all possible efforts to ensure that the road is built as carefully as possible for the benefit of his constituents and the travelling public. I take his comments very seriously, particularly those about blight and the way in which we tackle and plan such roads. Wherever we can learn lessons, we must do so. The widening scheme was one of the first proposals of its kind and since it was devised we have been learning lessons and applying them to schemes that we are now introducing. I am nevertheless grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I respect his efforts on behalf of his constituents. He is quite right to pursue the matter.
I want first to give a general view of the roads in the area because it is important to see the matter in a strategic context. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Government's commitment to a fully improved M20 which, with the proposed A20 route, will provide the main high-quality road artery connecting the channel tunnel, Folkestone and Dover, the M25/M26, London and the rest of the United Kingdom road network.
Much progress has been made. The "missing link" of the M20 between Maidstone and Ashford was completed and opened to traffic in May 1991. Work on the road between junctions 5 and 8 started in July 1991 and is well on target for completion before the channel tunnel opens in 1993. Good progress is being made on all three contracts for the construction of the new A20 between Folkestone and Dover, which also will be completed in time for the tunnel opening.
That leaves the Department's proposals for widening the M20 between junctions 3 and 5, which were announced 1319 in October 1991. As my right hon. Friend knows, publicity brochures were widely circulated in the locality of the proposed works and a local exhibition of plans was held. The comments that were received by the Department are being taken into account in the detailed development of the scheme, which is now under way. Subject to statutory procedures, we hope to start work in 1995. It will take two years to build. We still hope to stick to that timetable.
I understand my right hon. Friend's frustration about the time taken to bring the scheme to this stage, and I truly sympathise with his constituents who have suffered uncertainty during this period. One of the great problems of building roads is that it creates blight and uncertainty. It is one of our prime tasks and duties to limit that as far as possible and to offer compensation where we cannot do so
We must, however, take time in preparing our roads. We must investigate properly the right design for a motorway widening scheme and must develop the project with much care and attention to detail, especially where it goes through an urban area. Many schemes and options were investigated, including a number of ways of widening the road and even a new off-line solution. My right lion. Friend rightly said that where it is proposed to build a road through an urban area it behoves us to be more precise at an earlier early stage. That is a useful suggestion.
Most of the options that we considered would have required substantial land acquisition, and in the end the preferred scheme requires the loss of only a few homes along the motorway. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty that then existed about how the widening would be implemented, it was only right that people living within the 67 m band, who needed to sell their houses but could not do so because of the blighting effects of the scheme, should have been able to require the Department to acquire the properties from them under the planning and blight rules. Not to have allowed that would have penalised unfairly the many local householders who had genuine reasons for wanting to move during the period when the scheme options were being evaluated.
Some regard the 67 m hand as too restrictive, but a line must be drawn somewhere, and however one frames the rules, there will always be cases that fall just outside them. We tried to be as generous as possible in interpreting the rules.
My reply today to the two questions tabled by my right hon. Friend explains that, to date, we have acquired 264 dwellings under the statutory blight provisions. A further 28 are in the process of acquisition, following acceptance of blight notices. Acceptance of blight notices within the 67 m band effectively ceased on announcement of the scheme's proposals last October, but section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 embodied discretionary powers which, for the first time, enabled us to acquire at this stage property within and outside the 67 m planning blight zone which we expect to be seriously affected by the widening.
Those new powers enable the Department to assist certain carefully defined categories of householders who wish to move but who are not eligible for consideration under the planning and blight provisions. As I announced in the House in January, the Department is now able to consider individual applications for acquisitions under the new powers and we have already agreed to acquire some 18 properties. Further applications are being considered 1320 on their merits and will he dealt with as quickly as possible. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support for that compensation and these proposals.
y right hon. Friend was rightly concerned about the future of the houses currently in the Department's ownership which will be surplus to requirements for our proposed scheme and about arrangements for the rehousing of the tenants living in them when their tenancies expire. I confirm that the majority of the properties that have been acquired will not be needed for the scheme. My officials have been considering the timing and method of disposal of these surplus properties. I appreciate the concern of the local housing authority, Tonbridge and Malling borough council, that it could be faced with a major rehousing problem. I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that the Department is in close liaison with the council about the programme of disposals. Following a number of meetings with officials of the council. the Department of the Environment, the Housing Corporation and the district valuer, the Department is working up a strategy to minimise the potential for homelessness.
My right hon. Friend referred to the letter dated 30 September that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to him and said that the Department and the council were in some conflict in their understanding of the situation. I believe that my right hon. Friend's letter clearly sets out our view, but if there is still misunderstanding, that is unsatisfactory and we need to sort out exactly what the position is, and we should do that. Our aim is also to avoid homelessness wherever possible.
As to disposal of surplus vacant property, we have already made an encouraging start despite the downturn in the housing market. Purchasers have been secured for 25 properties, two of which have already been sold. A further batch is under offer and if not sold will he put up for auction in December. Our objective is to dispose of our remaining stock in a phased, orderly manner extending tenancies where necessary to avoid homelessness and to secure value for money.
I take what my right hon. Friend said about suitable tenants because there is, as always, a problem and we need to work hard to ensure that the right people go into the houses as tenants.
My right hon. Friend also asked about noise reduction measures for the widened motorway, with particular reference to the use of a blacktop porous asphalt rather than a concrete surface. As a result of my announcement on 29 July on road surface noise, we shall not be using a concrete surface. We may use a blacktop surface, but I take what he said about porous asphalt. We can do far more than we have to surface our roads in a way that makes them quieter and to make more barriers against noise. I feel that it is one of my prime duties to make progress on this. However, we are slightly concerned about porous asphalt where roads are heavily used by traffic, especially by heavy goods vehicles, because we are worried about the lifespan of porous asphalt under such conditions. I shall certainly look at this carefully, but I cannot give any commitment.
As to other measures to reduce noise, we have employed landscape consultants who are looking to landscape the road carefully to make it as attractive as possible within that narrow corridor. We shall be looking at every way possible to reduce noise. We are examining various barriers such as those used on the continent to see 1321 whether we can devise an effective scheme to reduce noise. There will be help with insulation where houses meet the regulations. There will be much time to consult and consider how we should proceed.
I hope that I have answered the points raised by my right hon. Friend. I respect the efforts that he makes on 1322 behalf of his constituents with great tenacity. We shall do our best to learn all the necessary lessons. We are keen to consult local people wherever possible. I know that he will keep me in touch with their views. We shall do everything possible to engineer this road quietly but in a way that will enable it to cope with the heavy traffic without too much disturbance to his constituents.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.