HL Deb 16 March 1993 vol 543 cc1328-30

2.38 p.m.

Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will review the M.11 link motorway project in north east London in view of the proposed destruction of occupied houses, the compulsory eviction of some 1,000 occupants, and the refusal of legal aid to those threatened.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, no.

Lord Jay

My Lords, if the Government will not review the scheme, and since in this case hundreds of ordinary citizens are threatened with forcible eviction from their homes, cannot the Prime Minister's Citizen's Charter at least help by according the victims legal aid to state a case in the courts and protection against the state machine which is bearing down on them?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, the scheme has been the subject of extensive consultation, three public inquiries and a court case. The question of legal aid is for the Legal Aid Board. We cannot interfere.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the decision to move Spitalfields to the area was based on the extension of the M.11?

The Earl of Caithness

I am sorry, my Lords. I missed the first part of the noble Lord's question.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the decision to move Spitalfields Market to a location opposite the roundabout where the new section of the M.11 will join was based on the extension?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful for the support that the noble Lord gives to the scheme. It will bring extensive benefits to many people in that area.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, is the premise on which the Question is based true?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the Question is accurate in so far as there will be a link road extension to the M.11. It will not be a motorway. There are about 263 properties involved. The number of people who will be displaced is about 550. The Secretary of State owns 197 properties, which leaves 66 to be acquired. The estimated number of people seeking rehousing is about 172.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, are the Government in favour of the Legal Aid Board looking at the problems of those unfortunate people sympathetically?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Legal Aid Board not only looked at their cases but that the matter then went to appeal. It is quite wrong for the Government to intervene in that legal process.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, is the Minister aware on this day of all days, when the Chancellor is about to introduce his Budget, that legal aid comes in many different guises? Will the Minister encourage the Legal Aid Board, against the background of the Chancellor's legal aid—£4,000 from the Treasury and a gift of £18,000 from an anonymous donor in order to evict an undesirable tenant—to look even more sympathetically at the cases of those tenants who face compulsory eviction?

The Earl of Caithness

No, my Lords.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, is the Minister aware that this Question is one in which the late Lord Underhill would have taken an interest? It was his area and he was very much involved in the whole of that part of Essex. His death last Friday will have saddened noble Lords in all parts of the House. Reg Underhill—I can say this with experience—was a very good man to work with. He was calm, thorough, highly principled and kind. I am sure his many friends in your Lordships' House will join me in conveying to Lady Underhill and the family our deepest sympathy. Perhaps I may ask a question which he would possibly have wanted to ask. Can the noble Lord explain why there has been so much local opposition to the scheme? It amounts to more than the normal NIMBY opposition. Waltham Forest Council took the issue to the High Court. Does the Minister believe that the Government have had as wide consultation on a personal level with the local people as we would all desire?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would want to be associated with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, concerning the late Lord Underhill. We shall all miss him.

With regard to the question of objections, that is the benefit of the system that we have in this country. People can object to the scheme. There have been three public inquiries and a court case. However, despite the protestations of some locally, the local council says that there is now great potential for bringing enormous relief to Leytonstone High Road and perhaps pedestrianising part of it. That, I am sure, would be welcomed in the area.

Lord Jay

My Lords, does the Minister really think it right that hundreds of people should be forcibly evicted from their homes, without any chance of rehousing in many cases, just to take six minutes off a car journey? Does that encourage home ownership?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I would say that the reverse is the case. As the noble Lord knows, the environment locally will be substantially improved. There will be benefits in that the existing trunk road, which is congested, will be put in a tunnel at George Green. That has been widely welcomed by the Wanstead conservationists involved in the area. There will be better access to Epping Forest. I would also say that the houses that the Secretary of State owns have been leased on a short term basis which has helped the local authority to provide much needed accommodation.