§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
7.12 pm§ Mr. David Kidney (Stafford)I am glad to have the opportunity to quiz the Under-Secretary on the Government's plans to widen the M6 motorway. I am also pleased that he is on the Front Bench, because he is always most helpful.
People in Stafford often talk about traffic conditions on the M6. It rivals the weather as a topic of conversation, but it has to be said that the weather is more variable. As we wake up each morning, the television and radio news is always the same: that traffic on the M6 southbound is stationary between junctions 8 and 10. The Secretary of State made a statement to the House in December last year outlining his intention to widen the M6. If you were stuck in a traffic jam on the M6 just north of Birmingham, Madam Deputy Speaker—and bearing in mind your constituency, you probably have been—you would be delighted to hear on your car radio that the Government were at last going to solve the problem. But their plans do not touch junctions 8 to 10. They start at junction 11 and go northwards to junction 20. Have the Government got their priorities right in solving the problem of congestion on the M6?
In fairness, the Government have plans to tackle problems on the M6 nearer to Birmingham. Next year a toll motorway will open and a pilot scheme will start on active traffic management. The toll motorway—what was the Birmingham northern relief road, now renamed the M6 toll—is Britain's first private toll motorway. It leaves the M6 north of Birmingham, travels over the top of the city and joins the M42 to the south-east. As the Secretary of State said in a recent speech, when that motorway opens, we will be able to gain active and genuine experience of whether motorists are willing to pay tolls to avoid traffic jams. We will see whether there is consumer acceptance or consumer opposition.
The active traffic management scheme involves much more use of overhead gantries and the provision of information to try directly to manage the flow of the traffic, as regards the speeds and lanes to use, and so on, and more controversially, at times of peak traffic to use the hard shoulder as a running lane. I know that the RAC has concerns about the use of hard shoulders for the driving of cars, because of worries about the impact on safety. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on the Government's intentions for more general use of hard shoulders to enable traffic to move along the motorway.
In Birmingham, the ultimate plan is to introduce ATM for the whole of the west midlands motorway box—that is, the whole network of motorways around Birmingham. I can see that that might help, but first the Government have a plan for a pilot scheme on part of the M42. Because the problem of congestion is so severe just north of Birmingham on the M6 motorway, I hope the Government will show some urgency in developing ATM if it is a possible solution.
Staffordshire is divided on the question of widening the M6 through Staffordshire. Some say that economic development is being held back in the county because of 557 the well known problem of traffic hold-ups on the M6. People cannot easily travel to and from work, the delivery of goods to businesses is held up, and inward investors thinking of developing north of Birmingham are put off by the stories about traffic hold-ups. For this group of people, the widening is essential and urgent.
Others, however, say that motor vehicles are pollutants and that we should seek to provide alternative transport forms so that we rely less on them. They say that a wider M6 motorway will just attract more vehicles and still be full. In consequence, the residents of Staffordshire will suffer more noise, fumes and vibration if the widening goes ahead. As regards the strength of those two views, last autumn I held a series of public meetings, which I called my M6 roadshow, to try to explain to members of the public what might happen if the motorway is widened. I found that those two views were broadly evenly balanced, one against the other.
I should add that there is a different and distinctive argument from a group of people supported by some parish councils in Staffordshire and in Cheshire, which is also affected. They say that instead of widening the M6, we should build a new strategic road between Manchester and the midlands. The Government set up a multi-modal study for the transport corridor involving the M6 from the west midlands to Manchester, so the study was given the name MidMan. It is interesting that that plan for a new strategic road came out with the best cost-benefit analysis of all the options considered, but it was decisively rejected on environmental grounds.
I want Staffordshire businesses to be successful, but I do not believe that a heavy reliance on widening the M6 motorway is the right way to help them. It also comes at too high a cost for Staffordshire's residents—residents like those people who live in streets next to the motorway in Stafford, such as Devon way and Southfields road, places that I know well. To those who ask why we were foolish enough to build houses next to a motorway, I would say that the houses were there first, and ask who was stupid enough to allow a motorway to be constructed at the bottom of people's gardens. For those people, opening a window in summer is not sensible. Going into the garden on a lovely summer's evening is not tolerable. Growing vegetables to eat is definitely not something that they would do.
The effects of the motorway spread across the whole of Stafford, which has a population of 50,000. They are felt in villages such as Penkridge, which has a population of 10,000. Everyone worries about the noise, fumes and vibration from the existing motorway, let alone a wider one.
What about the economic costs of widening the M6? The Conservative Government of the early 1990s also announced their intention to widen the M6 between junctions 11 and 20. They got as far as producing plans, holding public exhibitions locally and acquiring land, but then they abandoned the scheme on cost grounds.
MidMan estimated that the cost of widening the M6 from junctions 11 to 20, from three lanes each way to four lanes each way, would be about £700 million. The study also recommended that additional money should be spent on other transport measures, such as improved 558 rail services, more rail freight, better bus use and park-and-ride facilities. Even in the short time since MidMan published its study, however, the estimated cost of the M6 widening has risen to more than £900 million. Will the other necessary schemes recommended by MidMan be cut and will much needed environmental protection measures be left out of the M6 widening scheme as the costs escalate?
The time scale for the widening scheme is about 10 years. People sitting in traffic jams, listening to the Government's plan to widen the motorway to solve their problem, learn that they must wait 10 years for it to come into effect. Other transport measures recommended by MidMan could be carried out much more quickly.
To sum up my concerns about the principle of widening the M6: are the Government sure that a big, lengthy project, costing a lot of public money, is the best solution to the problem of so many vehicles filling the M6? Would it not be more effective to implement a more modest scheme, which included the provision of climbing lanes at specified locations, junction capacity improvements and ATM, allied to a balanced package of schemes involving road and rail and public and private investment? However, I support MidMan's conclusion that doing nothing is not an option. Already, more than 100,000 vehicles a day pass through Staffordshire on the M6 and further growth is forecast. The existing motorway cannot cope with that amount of traffic indefinitely.
The MidMan public consultation was inadequate, not through lack of willingness to consult but through lack of time. The study took longer to complete than was envisaged and the final report was needed in time for the regional planning guidance inquiry. The Minister should not place too much reliance on the MidMan study alone.
I attended the regional planning inquiry to put the case of my constituents, and I was interested in the report of the regional planning inspectors. They declined to endorse the conclusion of the MidMan report to widen the M6. They left the decision to the Secretary of State, as it involved national strategic considerations rather than regional considerations.
Before I turn to the practical consequences of widening the motorway, I praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for the way in which they have given effect to the Secretary of State's decision so far. I was in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend made his announcement about widening the M6. He said that he would discuss with Members any concerns that they wanted to express. I wrote to him quickly to ask if I could bring a delegation to visit a Minister. His response was equally prompt and I was able to take a delegation from Stafford to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. On that day in February, the Under-Secretary and representatives of the Highways Agency met representatives of the three tiers of local government in Staffordshire—the county, the borough and the parishes—and me.
The councils pressed for a good working relationship between them and the Highways Agency as they worked up the plans for Ministers' consideration. I understand that that will take place in July. Will my hon. Friend tell 559 us whether a practical working relationship has been established between the Highways Agency and the councils?
I am worried about letters that residents receive from private claims negotiators who offer to negotiate on their behalf to get compensation if the widening goes ahead. Does my hon. Friend agree that people should keep their freedom to decide what to do for themselves? Does he further agree that they should be able to approach the Highways Agency if they have any queries?
Some of the M6 road surface in Staffordshire is still concrete. The Government have a scheme to replace that noisy surface on trunk roads. Will the M6 he excluded from the scheme because of its status of awaiting widening? Will not that delay relief from noise for many thousands of people in Staffordshire? Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the widening goes ahead, the best noise-reducing surface will be laid as part of the construction contract?
Good quality landscaping along the motorway can mitigate the noise, fumes and vibration. Bunding—giant earth mounds—can block and divert some ill effects. Appropriate planting can absorb harmful fumes. To what extent can my hon. Friend assure me and residents of Staffordshire and Cheshire that every effort will be made to provide such high quality protection?
When houses are up against the boundary of the existing M6, parallel widening leaves a space for landscaping between the relocated motorway and the houses. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that method of widening the M6 will be adopted when appropriate?
Some environmental groups are worried about parallel widening. They fear that it will leave the way open to extending the motorway further to a 10-lane M6. Will my hon. Friend confirm on the record that a 10-lane M6 is out of the question?
My anxieties neatly split into two. First, is widening the M6 necessary in the form that the Government propose? Secondly, is it good value for money? If so, will the residents who are most affected have all the environmental protection that can reasonably be designed and implemented?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing the debate and on the way in which he made his points with his customary courtesy and quiet forcefulness. I noted that he began his speech with what I call tabloid headline speak, by saying that he would "quiz the Under-Secretary". However, I also noted that, throughout his speech, he heaped praise on the rest of the ministerial team and me. That never does his cause any harm. I commend that approach to others who seek to get into our good books on road and transport issues in their constituencies.
The M6 is a vital link between the midlands and the north-west, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend pointed out that the corridor has been part of the multi-modal study that examines ways in which to improve road, rail and other public transport links in the next 30 years.
560 I shall explain the purpose of the studies to put the matter in context. Previous problems with the strategic road network would have been addressed without reference to other modes of transport. However, the integrated transport White Paper, which was published in July 1998 and entitled "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" set out the Government's proposals for a better, more integrated transport system to tackle the growing problems of congestion and pollution.
The White Paper acknowledged that we could not simply go on as before, building more new roads to accommodate the growth in car traffic. The Government's 10-year plan for transport, which was published in July 2000, emphasised that tackling problems on the strategic road network requires an integrated set of solutions.
The plan recognised that there are physical, environmental and financial limits to the amount of extra road space that we can build. The Government therefore set up the multi-modal studies to develop sustainable long-term solutions to problems identified under key parts of the strategic road network. The studies were remitted to look at a wide range of measures that could contribute to a solution.
Those measures include opportunities for achieving mode shift by providing people with alternatives to car travel, and through the potential for reducing the need to travel afforded by schemes such as company car plans, the greater use of electronic communications, land use planning, and pricing measures.
Importantly, the studies were specifically asked to look at the case for increases in road capacity in the context of a wider transport strategy. It was never thought that road building could be avoided entirely. Indeed, the potential need for some increases in road capacity to address congestion problems on the strategic road network was clearly recognised in the 10-year plan. At the time, it was considered that we would need to widen some 5 per cent. of the strategic road network, and that about 150 other major schemes would be needed on the network.
The M6 corridor between Birmingham and Manchester was the subject of the west midlands to the north-west multi-modal study, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford rightly called the MidMan study. That was begun in December 1999, and reported to the west midlands local government association and the north-west regional assembly in May 2002.
The M6 was built in the 1960s. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will not remember it, but I recall it from my youth. It was built to provide a high-speed and vital link running from the north and the north-west to the southeast and south-west. The stretch between junctions 13 and 14 was built in the early 1960s. It was the first section to open in the midlands and was commonly known at the time as the Stafford bypass. That relieved the severe traffic congestion occurring at the time in Stafford town centre. It was followed in 1962 by the section between junctions 14 and 15, and in 1963 by the section between junctions 15 and 16. The section between junctions 12 and 13 was opened in 1966, when the motorway was extended southwards.
561 The M6 plays a vital role in supporting the national economy, and the section between junctions 11 and 20 is severely congested, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said. Car journeys account for about 88 per cent. of the trips in the M6 corridor, with this section carrying traffic volume in excess of 90,000 vehicles a day. In addition, 93 per cent. of the total tonnage of freight is carried on the road, with the remainder carried by rail.
The M6 has to bear that load, but the road does not meet current standards. Even a minor incident can lead to serious disruption and delay. In a growing economy, that is unacceptable. We needed to look at all the possible ways of delivering significant improvements to transport in the area.
The original scheme for widening the motorway was developed in the early 1990s, but it was put on hold by the previous Conservative Government in 1995. The scheme was to provide five lanes of motorway in each direction—one more than the eventual recommendation that we are considering.
Following careful consideration of the MidMan study recommendations and the views expressed on them by regional interests and others, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport outlined our response to the House in December 2002. In this response, it was made clear that we accepted the MidMan recommendations. At the same time, my right hon. Friend specified that the detailed design work must be carried out to high environmental standards in order to minimise any adverse environmental impacts.
I am happy to be able to reiterate this commitment today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford raised the matter in his speech. Environmental protection measures will be an integral part of any final scheme. In addition, I can respond to my hon. Friend's specific question about the road surface by assuring him that it will be the new noise reduction surface.
I should add that, outside of the Forestry Commission, the Highways Agency is in fact the largest planter of deciduous trees in the country. It is rather late in the evening for me to release that little snippet of information to the House, but it is true nevertheless.
The study clearly demonstrated that some road widening is a necessary component of the strategy aimed at tackling congestion on the M6 motorway, and it looked at alternative options for solving problems on the M6. In particular, the study found that staying with three lanes and tackling congestion through a combination of demand management measures and public transport improvements would not in itself provide an acceptable long-term solution. My hon. Friend asked whether we have the appropriate solution. The answer is that we would not be going ahead with this unless we though that it was the appropriate solution. The study concluded that widening to five lanes would, as my hon. Friend pointed out, have adverse environmental impacts. That is why in our response we confirmed our support for the study recommendations for widening the M6 motorway from dual three to dual four lanes between junctions 11A and 19. We also support the short-term measures recommended by the study to improve conditions on the motorway, and we have asked the Highways Agency to 562 take them forward. Those improvements will relieve congestion and improve safety and accessibility. We have also asked the Highways Agency to carry out further detailed work so that widening can be taken forward quickly and largely delivered over the next 10 years.
I understand my hon. Friend's concerns regarding impacts on the environment and on his constituents. That is why we asked the Highways Agency to ensure that detailed design work is carried out to high environmental standards in order to minimise any adverse environmental impacts. I can assure him that as part of its work the Highways Agency will consult local stakeholders on these issues, and it has been working since December 2002 on the best way in which to take forward the recommendations.
In the time that I have left, I shall address some of the other points that my hon. Friend raised. With regard to the traffic jams that he notes on the M6 between junctions 8 and 10, it is intended that that issue will be most sensibly resolved by the new M6 toll road. He also mentioned active traffic management. We expect a pilot scheme of ATM on a 17-km—or 10-mile—stretch of the M42 to start in summer 2004, and we will of course look closely at its implications for road safety and at its effectiveness in dealing with traffic congestion.
I assure my hon. Friend that on the M6 scheme, as on all schemes of this type, the Highways Agency works very closely with local stakeholders, and it will work closely with the relevant local authorities. I understand that the Highways Agency has already initiated that dialogue with the relevant local authorities. As part of its analysis, the Highways Agency will take account of the deliverability of any solution in terms of its costs and its impacts on the environment and on local communities.
§ Mr. KidneyI am really grateful to my hon. Friend for the assurances he is giving me—they are all the right things that I want to hear. The one matter that I want to check with him is that there must be a finite pot of money for the MidMan recommendations, and the option that my hon. Friend is going with includes recommendations for rail and bus park and ride schemes. They take much less than 10 years to implement, so will they go ahead before the widening goes ahead?
§ Mr. JamiesonAs my hon. Friend knows, all multi-modal studies have huge cost implications. If I said today that all the aspirations in those studies were going to become reality, I might be called to account in two or three years' time. It is our ambition to carry forward a wide-ranging package of measures—not only road, but rail, measures. I have to say that many of my constituents look with envy at the amount of work that is taking place on the west coast main line, which serves part of my hon. Friend's constituency, and ask me why such sums are not being spent in other parts of the country. The single biggest investment in rail that there has ever been is passing near my hon. Friend's constituency.
My hon. Friend has mentioned on several occasions his support for investment in public transport. We agree with him. In our response in December 2000 we 563 explained that motorway widening would be complemented by the major investment that we are putting into the upgrade of the west coast main line. That will bring significant benefits to rail travellers and help to relieve some of the traffic on the M6. In addition, we have asked the Strategic Rail Authority to examine the scope for accommodating further local and regional rail service improvements, recommended by the MidMan study, as part of the west coast mainline modernisation programme, subject, of course, to the value-for-money criteria being met.
We also strongly encourage the local authorities in the study corridor, particularly Staffordshire, Cheshire and Stoke-on-Trent, to take forward the recommended local transport measures. As part of the 2003–04 local transport capital settlement also announced in December 2002, we are pleased to provide funding of £475,000 for Staffordshire for better interchanges and car parks at stations, as a first step in implementing the study recommendations.
My hon. Friend will also know that the study takes a view that all realistic opportunities to optimise the volume of rail freight should be carried forward. The SRA's proposals for upgrading the west coast main line allow for a significant increase in capacity for freight traffic, which will help relieve the M6 and his constituents from some of the noise of lorries. I am aware that the study also made further recommendations for improvements in rail freight 564 capacity. However, it is essential that the rail industry should focus initially on our key priority of upgrading the west coast main line.
In conclusion, these measures will bring real improvements to the M6 motorway over the next decade and reflect our great commitment to providing a safe and reliable transport system fit for the 21st century. If issues remain that I have not been able to cover in my comments tonight, I would be delighted, were my hon. Friend to indicate them, to correspond with him, adding to the copious correspondence that we have had already. I thank him for raising these issues tonight, as he always does, in a powerful and persuasive manner on behalf of his constituents.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock.