M.4: Widening (Hansard, 12 January 1994)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)
My Lords, the recent public consultation for our proposals between junctions 4b and 8(9) gave an estimate for works of £240 million. Options for widening between junctions 8(9) and 12 are still under investigation but the 1990 roads report Trunk Roads, England: Into the 1990s put the cost at £70 million at 1987 prices.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord on his promotion but regret the tragic circumstances in which it occurred. Is the noble Lord aware that the amount of money which the Government are prepared to spend on widening the road is completely unnecessary? Is he aware that Berkshire County Council and a good many people in Berkshire are completely opposed to any widening whatever? Would it not be better for the Government to delay any work on that road until the effects of road pricing—which I understand may be introduced within four years—are felt, because that may very well reduce the usage of the road to a considerable degree?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations. Like the noble Lord, I very much regret the reasons for which I find myself answering these questions at the Dispatch Box.
As the noble Lord knows, being, I suspect, a user of the M.4, it is an extremely busy road especially in the section that we are discussing where a great deal of local traffic, which is on the motorway only for a very short time, leaves and joins it. It is extremely congested. We believe that we cannot leave the matter for ever. We must take steps. As the noble Lord knows, the matter is out for consultation. We shall look at all the comments received from all the people in the area before reaching a final conclusion and when considering the possibility of a public inquiry, if necessary.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I echo what my noble friend Lord Stoddart said about the Minister entering the transport field. I congratulate him on his appointment and hope that he will apply his common sense to rescue this country from the Government's motorway madness.
Is not this widening scheme just one of many planned by the Government? Is it not a fact that umpteen-lane 114 motorways threaten enormous environmental harm as well as being an exercise in total futility because as motorways are Widened, they are merely filled with extra vehicles? Does not the Minister agree that what is really needed is a massive change in priorities heavily in favour of the over-strained public transport system?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I hope that over time I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord that the Government do not suffer from motorway madness. The truth of the matter is that many people wish to travel by car. Motorways are an important part of the fabric of our economy and social system. It is important that where there is terrific pressure on them, as there is in that particular location, we must take the necessary steps to make the roads capable of carrying the traffic which wants—I underline "wants"—to use the roads.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest as one who has to travel regularly to Oxford by road. Is it not the case that this particular stretch is a cause for concern not only to the inhabitants of Berkshire or the environment? Am I not right in thinking that the northward bound junction, which is part of the stretch of the M.25, is virtually impassable due to the pressure of traffic; that the Hangar Lane operation on the M.40, which affects those who wish to use this stretch, makes that almost impossible; and those who wish to go to Oxford must go by junctions 8 and 9 onto the M.40 by that means? Is it not important that those considerations should be taken into account?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, my noble and learned friend is quite right to point out that the M.25, at junction 4b with the M.4, is extremely congested. We are looking at that problem. The particular difficulty as regards the part of the motorway under discussion is that a great deal of local traffic joins it for a few kilometres and then leaves it. That adds to the congestion. The plan involves parallel roads which will take that local traffic away from the arterial M.4, which is a vitally important road to the west of England and to Wales.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, from these Benches, I reiterate the comments that have been made from the Labour Benches as regards the Minister. He is welcome to what is a somewhat exclusive club in your Lordships' House. He will find it extremely rare for so many noble Lords to be in your Lordships' House when transport matters are being discussed in the future. I ask a practical question on this matter. Would not the money spent on this project be better invested in a rail link from Heathrow to Reading? That would take a considerable amount of the traffic which is using that part of the motorway. It seems to me that the link into Heathrow is in place for coming into London but there is no link going outwards. I should have thought that it would be far better to use the money on such a rail link.

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I hope that we can stimulate more interest in transport matters in your Lordships' House.
As a first philosophical entry into the field, perhaps I may say that I do not believe that public and motorway transport are necessarily interchangeable. For a variety of reasons many people want, and will always want, to travel on motorways. That section of the motorway is extremely busy and congested, as I have said already, with a mix of local and long distance traffic. We believe that the scheme offers a way to improve and alleviate the traffic flow in that area.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a motorway with more than three or, at most, four lanes in each direction is so inherently dangerous that if the proposed widening goes ahead it will be necessary to lower the speed limit on the stretch in question from 70 miles per hour to no more than, perhaps, 50 miles per hour?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I must confess to the noble Lord that I have not yet studied the issue long enough to be able to comment on the first part of his question about the inherent safety of more than four-lane motorways. However, I must tell him that that is not what is envisaged here. We envisage that the motorway will be the two centre roads and that there will be two adjacent roads on either side which will cope with the local traffic. The local traffic will have to use those roads and will not be able to get on and off the motorway as it does at present.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, we have several times previously discussed the possibility of a public inquiry into the proposal for 14 lanes. However, today the Minister was rather more tentative. Can the noble Lord say whether there is a definite plan to hold a public inquiry; and, if so, has any date been fixed for it? Can the Minister also give an assurance that the changes in the rules of procedure will not mean that the objections to the scheme cannot be properly deployed?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, I believe I suggested to the noble Lord's noble friend that this will not be a multi-laned motorway; in fact, it will be a motorway with adjacent dual carriageway roads which will take the local traffic. Therefore, it is not quite what the noble Lord portrayed. The position at present is that we are looking at the comments that we have received from the consultation. When we start the statutory procedures, depending on what we decide, obviously it may, if necessary, include a public inquiry. However, a date has not been set for it.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the Minister who authorised the construction of the M.4 finds it very gratifying that so many people want to use it?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, my noble friend made many wise decisions during his ministerial career. I hope that I shall be able to do likewise.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, from an environmental point of view, the most damaging thing is to have slow-moving traffic which means that vehicles are knocking into each other? Does he also agree that motorways are environmentally good for wildlife? Does he further agree that those who do not wish to have roads in their backyards should, in all fairness, not use roads which go past other people's backyards?

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely good point. I shall stand at the main door and count the number of walkers leaving your Lordships' House in future, after I have taken a look at who tables such Questions. I believe that there is an environmental aspect involved. However, there is another environmental point which has not yet been mentioned. I refer to the pressure on the local roads in the local housing estates, and so on, as people try to find ways to make progress east to west or west to east without going on to the congested motorway.