---

McAllion, John

McAvoy, Thomas

McFall, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McKelvey, William

McLeish, Henry

McWilliam, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marek, Dr John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Martlew, Eric

Maxton, John

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morgan, Rhodri

Morley, Elliott

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Paul

Nellist, Dave

O'Brien, William

O'Neill, Martin

Parry, Robert

---

Column 554

Patchett, Terry

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prescott, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Quin, Ms Joyce

Redmond, Martin

Reid, Dr John

Robertson, George

Rogers, Allan

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Rowlands, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Sheerman, Barry

Short, Clare

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Steinberg, Gerry

Stott, Roger

Strang, Gavin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Turner, Dennis

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Wall, Pat

Wallace, James

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wareing, Robert N.

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Wray, Jimmy

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7325/88 on transport infrastructure and 6047/88 on aids for transport ; and endorses the Government's opposition both to the creation of a transport infrastructure spending instrument and to the extension of Regulation (EEC) No. 1107/70 to cover the granting of aids for certain transport operating costs.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That during the proceedings on the matter of the effects of the Queen's Speech on the people of Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before 4 pm nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for 2 hours at the sitting.-- [Mr. John M. Taylor.]

PETITIONS

Settle-Carlisle Railway

11.57 pm

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) : I wish to present a petition from my constituents who are deeply concerned about the possible closure of the Settle-Carlisle line on economic, social and environmental grounds.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway will be retained as an integral part of the national railway network.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc. To lie upon the Table.

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) : I wish to present a petition, signed by 10,000 people, concerning the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway.

British Rail has applied to the Secretary of State for leave to close the line and the Government have shown their preference for selling it to the private sector.

The petitioners think that the line should remain part of the British Rail network. The line, notably the magnificent Ribblehead viaduct, lies partly within my constituency. The Government should take to heart the importance of securing the long-term future of the line, which stands alone in Britain in bringing together the magnificence of human engineering and some of the finest landscapes in the United Kingdom.

To lie upon the Table.

---

Column 555

Cambridgeshire Structure Plan

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. John M. Taylor.]

11.58 pm

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West) : I am very grateful for the opportunity tonight to raise an important matter relating to Cambridgeshire.

We all appreciate the great movement of population which is taking place in our society and which has been happening for some years. Cambridgeshire is the fastest growing county in Britain. We have problems of success. There has been a remarkable growth of industry and commerce, particularly in high technology, in the county, for which we are very grateful and proud, and we have the finest agricultural land in the country. But it is important that, when Ministers are forming environmental policy, they appreciate the effect of all that upon human beings. The Secretary of State must also bear in mind the importance of his decisions on planning. If he makes a mistake the environment can be ruined for ever. For example, the Greater London area and Middlesex suffered as a result of ribbon development between the wars.

My hon. Friend the Minister is always under pressure from amenity groups and residents directly affected but it will not do to say NIMBY--not in my backyard--to justifiably worried house owners and residents. The Minister will also be under possibly stronger and more stealthy pressure from developers and he must be strong enough to resist that. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gained a reputation for being the slave of developers and a soft touch when cases go to appeal. That is unfair but he should bear it in mind.

The object of structure plans is to take into account local need, concerns and interests. The Government should give proper weight to local opinion. I shall refer to the Minister's proposed modifications to the Cambridgeshire structure plan. The modifications are illogical and fail lamentably to meet local or national needs. I shall outline some of the objections in brief.

My hon. Friend the Minister's proposals amount to a vast new settlement to the west of Cambridge involving out-of-town shopping. The result will be a new town of 14,000 people, which is equivalent to Huntingdon or St. Ives in the county. That is sheer madness. The object of fresh development, as the Department of the Environment and everyone else agrees, is to provide housing and employment opportunities for the north of Cambridgeshire. The west development will merely attract yet more commuters working in London. I have nothing against people living in Cambridge and working in London because, after all, that is what I do. However, it is contrary to the strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants. It will do nothing to ease the problems of people working in and around Cambridge, especially to the north in the Fens which is where the problem really lies. By contrast, the panel advising the Minister supports the view that development to the south of Cambridge should be restrained. Paradoxically, that will be the effect if the modifications are confirmed.

The roads of Cambridgeshire are very dangerous. The A45 to the west is as dangerous as any. There have been many horrific accidents and crashes there during the time that I have been a Member of Parliament for the area. A new vast development such as that proposed could only

---

Column 556

make matters worse and increase the sum of human misery. That will be exacerbated particularly as commercial travel increases in 1992 and vehicles seek to gain access to the M11.

The important regeneration of the villages of Papworth Everard and Caldecote, where new housing is already under construction or planned, will be threatened by the new development. I am informed that in the village of Bourn there are drainage problems and that flooding could occur in Bourn Brook as a result of the development. That is according to the most recent information from the Anglian water authority. To add to all that, three sites of special scientific interest would be damaged.

Those arguments and many more are set out in more detail in the response sent to my right hon. Friend by the new settlement action group involving 14 villages. I beg the Government to study the response with great care. The important point is that there has been no consultation or opportunity for anyone to consider the vast new alteration and all its implications. That is contrary to my idea of local democracy and the freedom to which the Government subscribe. The proposal for the huge new settlement on the A45 west of Cambridge can be summed up by saying that it is incompatible with the strategy accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department. It will be devastating to the amenities of the existing population. It will increase the danger to life and limb, to say nothing of congestion on the A45. It will do nothing to meet the new housing demand generated from the Cambridge area and there has been no opportunity for those affected to make their case. In short, the proposal is stark, staring crazy.

I shall not be merely negative tonight, strong though my arguments are. I recognise the need for housing in the county and I believe that there is a solution. Development to the east of the A45--and I have in mind a site near Nine Mile hill--would conform to the strategy. Employment opportunities are to be found to the east of Cambridge, not to the west. All roads out of Cambridge are operating to full capacity except the 1303 leading east. The area to the west is more costly than the east for services and education needs can also be more easily met.

Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : As my hon. Friend knows, Nine Mile hill is in my constituency. Does he agree that already a large number of people commute to Cambridge from further north and the Fens? The Fenland district has been allocated only 7, 150 houses under the Secretary of State's proposals, although it wants 10,000. Would it not be more sensible to push the proposed development a little further north into the Fens, where it is wanted by the local councils and where the prosperity that it would bring is needed?

Sir Anthony Grant : It is quite true that that would be another alternative. Indeed, a development to the north would be exactly the same distance away from Cambridge as a development to the west. It was included in the original structure plan, which took two years of consultation and deliberation to develop. The whole point was muddled by the panel that has reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is certainly an alternative to the current unsatisfactory proposal.

Not only do I and my hon. Friend vehemently oppose the proposed scheme but the 14 villages immediately

---

Column 557

affected and the whole of the Cambridgeshire county council, Conservatives, Labour and Democrats, are opposed to the proposal. The whole planning problem is nationwide, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows from the strong representations from my hon. Friends. I am a strong supporter of the Government and I have been a Member of Parliament for many years. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give any answers tonight, but I want him, my right hon. Friend and the Government to be under no illusions. They are sitting on a keg of dynamite throughout the south and east of our nation, which will explode with devastating results unless the Government heed the wishes of the people they serve. I pray that Ministers will heed my words tonight and think again on the subject of Cambridgeshire.

12.8 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) for the helpful and constructive way in which, as always, he deployed his arguments. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), whose contribution was a gloss on my hon. Friend's speech. The fact that they were not ad idem shows the problems that the Government face in solving difficult planning issues.

This is a one-sided debate in two senses. First, all speakers are on the Conservative Benches, although that is not unusual. Secondly, I cannot tonight answer the points that have been raised. All that I can do is assure my hon. Friends that their submissions and arguments will be taken into account as relevant evidence on the structure plan proposed modifications. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their excellent timing. Ministers will be considering responses to the recent consultation within the next few weeks.

Perhaps in the time available I might briefly remind the House of how the structure plan process operates. It is a long and often painstaking process, but it is designed to produce the right conclusion, and certainly to enable everybody to put their point of view and to have it properly considered.

Structure plans provide the necessary framework for development control and the co-ordination and direction of development. They give a general indication of where development should be located and its size. The end product of the development plan process should be a clear and concise statement of policies and proposals for development which strike a satisfactory balance in land use between immediate availability for development, provision for future contingencies, and conservation. It is essential that the policies contained in an approved plan are closely monitored and kept up to date to cater for the needs of the county.

The existing Cambridgeshire structure plan was approved in 1980. Since then, Cambridgeshire has had to face several significant changes. They are : increasing

---