§ Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has yet received the report from the West Midlands county council referred to in the answer given by the Under-Secretary on 24 June 1982, Official Report, c. 170–171;
(2) if he is satisfied that the depths of tarmac and base course on the elevated sections of both carriageways of the M6 motorway between junctions 5 and 6 are adequate to (a) design tolerances and (b) traffic levels.
§ Mrs. Chalker[pursuant to her replies, 18 October 1982, c. 53–54, and 25 November 1982, c. 558]: The West Midlands county council has made extensive inquiries into these matters and has provided detailed and necessarily confidential reports which my Department has considered.
There is no evidence in the reports to suggest that any employee of the council has acted from improper personal motives or in the expectation of personal gain.
The Department considers the reports show that the procedures followed by the council's staff did not always meet the Department's requirements. For example, in the Dabb Chemicals case, the specification was discussed and agreed by the Department. Subsequently, and without the Department's agreement, the council's staff varied the specification. Further, extensive investigation by the council has failed to produce any evidence to show conclusively that this potential change was advised to all tenderers before tenders were returned.
On the contract for resurfacing Bromford viaduct, the council's staff decided on a method of control of laying the 328W wearing course which differed from that required by the Department's specification, which formed part of the contract. However, the resurfacing work is generally satisfactory in relation to traffic requirements.
The reports also conclude that the cost, if any, of these changes has been minimal. Nevertheless, I have drawn to the attention of the council the need to ensure that the requirements of the Department are met where the council is acting as an agent for the Secretary of State, and have discussed this with it.
My attention had already been drawn to some changes made in the specification for the repair of plinths on Wigmore and Thornbridge viaducts. I have taken this matter up with West Midlands county council. and am satisfied that there appears to have been a misunderstanding by the council of the Department's instructions. While this will result in the need for more frequent inspections and possibly eventual replacement of the repaired plinths, I am satisfied that at present the integrity of the plinths is not in question.
§ Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the consultants referred to in his answer of 24 June, Official Report, c. 169, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, about hairline cracks in repaired bearing plinths of the Midland link motorways; and if they will be reporting to his Department or the West Midlands county council as his agent.
§ Mrs. Chalker[pursuant to her reply, 15 July 1982, c. 441]: The report from Messrs. W. S. Atkins and Partners who were commissioned to investigate cracks in replaced bearing plinths on the midland link motorway viaducts confirms that the cracks are due to shrinkage and of no structural significance. As a precautionary measure, it recommends that a further coat of paint should be applied, during further steelwork painting, in order to seal the cracks. All cementatious materials shrink and are liable to minor cracks of the type found in this case.
Copies of the report and a supplementary report on specification tests have been placed in the Library of the House.