Oxleas Wood (Hansard, 24 May 1993)

§ 4. Mr. Raynsford
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to the advantages of saving Oxleas wood from destruction by means of a deep bore tunnel under the wood to connect with the east London river crossing.

§ The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)
When making their decision to proceed with the scheme, the Secretaries so State for Transport and for the Environment took full account of all the evidence presented at the public inquiry. That included the independent inspector's conclusion that a bored tunnel under Oxleas wood could not he justified.

§ Mr. Raynsford
Does the Minister recognise that the Government scheme, which would involve the destruction of this unique and precious piece of ancient woodland, has 557 been universally condemned, and that even the British Road Federation is now calling for an alternative route to save Oxleas wood? When will the Government come to their senses and call a halt to this act of environmental vandalism?

§ Mr. Norris
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to remind the House that such hyperbole is so wildly wide of the mark that it makes no rational contribution to the debate. The reality is that 89 per cent. of Oxleas wood will be unaffected by the scheme. Perhaps the House should be more aware of that—11 per cent. of the wood will be taken, but 89 per cent. will not. Perhaps that puts the issue into proper perspecitive.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the inspectors recommended that the road should be covered if it went through Oxleas wood but that, since the inspectors' reports, the British Road Federation has said that if the bridge which would help Newham and perhaps Thamesmead were built, the road through Oxleas wood would not be needed and that, in line with the Government's east Thames corridor proposals, the road should go towards the M25 and Dartford—[Interruption.]—rather than coming down into Shrewsbury ward in the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and into my constituency?

§ Mr. Norris
I have seen the BRF's scheme. My hon. Friend will have noted from the reaction that his mention of it has caused that it solves some problems but creates others. It is an interesting proposition which I shall, of course, ensure is fully explored, but we should not underestimate the fact that after the longest public inquiry on record—lasting 15 months—the inspectors concluded that the bored tunnel could not be justified and that, in the interests of what the scheme delivers, the environmental disadvantage was capable of being set against the greater strategic advantages of the new road.

§ Ms Walley
Why will not the Minister and the Secretary of State listen to what the people are saying about the £1 billion road programme and the way in which it appears to be immune from proper environmental impact assessment? Will he tell the House why he is not prepared to give us the right to know about the scheme, why is he not prepared immediately to make public the European Commission's full reasoned opinion on Oxleas wood and what action he is prepared to take to safeguard this site of special scientific interest from the bulldozer?

§ Mr. Norris
If the hon. Lady knew a little more about the matter, she would appreciate that the EC's reasoned opinion has nothing to do with the merits of the scheme. I am astonished that she is not aware that the EC's reasoned opinion is based on the merits of the transitional provisions of the appropritate directive. It is, incidentally, on a basis with which the Government have consistently disagreed. I see no reason, therefore, why what the EC has said should have had any impact on the route.
On publication, the hon. Lady will know that such communications between the Commission and the Governments of member states are always treated as confidential by both parties—[Interruption.] I stress that they are treated as confidential by both parties—not just by the Government, but by the Commission.