| Previous Section | Home Page |
Steen, Anthony
Summerson, Hugo
Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Thorne, Neil
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tracey, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Waller, Gary
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Watts, John
Whitney, Ray
Wilkinson, John
Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. John Bowis and
Mr. John Lee.
NOES
Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bellotti, David
Cartwright, John
Cohen, Harry
Corbett, Robin
Cox, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Dixon, Don
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Fraser, John
Graham, Thomas
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Kilfoyle, Peter
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
McCrea, Rev William
Column 1286
Maclennan, RobertMoate, Roger
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Paisley, Rev Ian
Pendry, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Randall, Stuart
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Robinson, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Spearing, Nigel
Straw, Jack
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Wilson, Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. Peter Bottomley and
Mr. David Alton.
Whereupon Madam Deputy Speaker-- declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure). It being after half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on Friday 24 January.
CORPORATE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 January.
TOURISM (OVERSEAS PROMOTION)(WALES) BILL
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 January.
COMMONWEALTH OF EUROPE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Not moved.
CHEQUES BILL
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
ARMED FORCES (LIABILITY FOR INJURY) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 January.
HOMICIDE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Column 1287
M20 (Junctions 3 and 5)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
2.36 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) : I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic replied to an Adjournment debate which I initiated only 14 months ago in November 1990. I make no apology for the fact that just 14 months later I am seeking his reply to a debate on the same subject. I have to tell him that the Department of Transport's handling of the widening of the M20 between junctions 3 and 5 in my constituency has been disastrous for hundreds of my constituents. I shall seek to demonstrate that it appears that it has also been a fair-sized disaster for the public purse. I shall put several specific issues to my hon. Friend, but before doing so I suggest that there is one lesson of overwhelming importance which I hope that the Department of Transport will learn from the way in which it has handled the scheme so far.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, from the moment that the Department announces its intention to widen a road, blight is instantly created. That is particularly the case if at the time of the announcement the Department does not announce how the widening scheme will be carried out. Obviously the blighting effect is particularly acute in areas where there is a substantial amount of residential property. That is the case along almost the entire length of the M20 between junctions 3 and 5.
The announcement of the intention to widen was made in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", which was published in May 1989. One would have hoped that it would be followed quickly by a detailed description by the Department of Transport of how the widening would be conducted.
In practice, two and a half years elapsed--until October 1991--before details of the widening schemes were announced. As a result, the huge swathe of blight created instantly from May 1989 onwards along both sides of the motorway continued unabated for two and a half years and continues to a degree. As a consequence, hundreds of people have been unable to sell their houses. The consequences have been disastrous for those who have had to do so for personal, family, health, matrimonial break-up or job reasons.
I hope that the Department of Transport will accept that it has a fundamental responsibility not to announce its intention to widen until it can at the same time, or shortly thereafter, say how the scheme will be carried out.
The two-and-a-half-year gap has also had serious consequences for the public purse. In a reply of 3 December my hon. Friend said that the Department had acquired at that time a total of 227 houses for the cost of £21.9 million--a purchase price of about £100,000 for each house. He went on to say that another 59 houses were being acquired. The Department will end up with 286 houses, which will cost the taxpayer about £28 million.
I do not criticise the Department of Transport for discharging its legal obligations under the blight purchase provisions. Indeed, it would have been wrong for it not to have done so. However, if one looks at the alignment of the road and reads the further part of his answer of 3 December--to the effect that of 286 houses acquired by the
Column 1288
Department not one will be required by the road scheme--one realises that it raises major issues of policy concerning public expenditure. The Department has effectively spent, or is spending, about £28 million to acquire 286 houses, none of which is required for the widening scheme. That is a matter of great concern. Indeed, I am so concerned that I think it is appropriate for me to refer the use of public funds in those circumstances to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I spoke to his office this morning and he confirmed that that is an appropriate matter for me to refer to him, and I propose to do so.I hope that the Department will not again announce an intention to widen without an immediate announcement--or as immediate as possible thereafter-- as to how the scheme will be carried out.
I want to mention six matters to my hon. Friend. The first concerns the section 62 powers which were taken by the Government--and I welcome that-- in the Planning Compensation Act 1991, giving new discretionary powers to the Secretary of State for Transport to acquire houses by agreement with their owners when they are seriously affected by a motorway or road scheme, regardless of any distance limit from the scheme.
I have been asking my hon. Friend for details of how those powers will be used, and I am grateful for the parliamentary reply that he gave me before the debate commenced, in which he has given an initial indication. Obviously, I shall want to examine that in the context of a number of cases. I hope that it will help one of my constituents who is in the extraordinary position of having received an offer from the Department of Transport whereby it will acquire her garage under the statutory blight provisions but not her house. I hope that the answer in my hon. Friend's letter will help her ludicrous and unfair situation as well as that of some other constituents who continue to feel that they are blighted, notwithstanding the announcement of the line of the widening scheme.
Secondly, there is the question of the continuance of the 200 m notification requirement on the planning authority for prospective purchasers. I can understand why that was necessary until the line of the widening scheme was announced, but I was dismayed to receive an answer from my hon. Friend on 18 December in which he said that the notification procedure would continue until the scheme was implemented. That will continue to blight properties well away from the widening scheme for some years to come. I urge him to reconsider his policy on notification in the context of the scheme.
My third point relates to noise from the motorway. In my view, this section of motorway--perhaps because I drive on it more than most--is as bad and as noisy a section of motorway as I have found anywhere in the country. It is of a ribbed, concrete surface which gives off more than the usual volume of noise. I hope that my hon. Friend will assure me that the opportunity of the widening scheme will be taken to bring about a significant noise reduction programme along this section of the M20, including a replacement of the existing ribbed concrete surface by a black top surface.
My fourth point relates to noise during the construction period. As I have said, this section runs almost entirely through a residential area. I hope that my hon. Friend will assure me that when construction commences strict
Column 1289
restrictions will be placed on the contractors so that construction is limited to normal working hours and there is no weekend working. My fifth point relates to the construction timetable. Now that the line of the widening scheme has been announced, I hope that it will be carried out as quickly as possible, not least because constituents who are facing a reduction in the value of their homes will be unable to claim injurious affection compensation until one year after the widening has been brought into operation.The timetable of the scheme seems to have slipped steadily. I have a letter of 31 May 1989 from Mr. Springett of the Department of Transport in which he said :
"The Department hopes that the widening will be completed in time for the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993."
Two years later I had an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic in which he said :
"Recent experience of other widening schemes suggests that construction could start by 1995 with completion two years later."--[ Official Report, 3 June 1991 ; Vol. 192, c. 54. ]
In other words, between those two indications of timetable, which are two years apart, there has been no less than a four-year delay. If my hon. Friend's latest answer is the correct one, it means that no injurious affection compensation would become payable to my constituents until 1998.
That degree of delay is unacceptable to my constituents. More significant for my hon. Friend with his ministerial responsibilities, it is unacceptable in national transport terms. The section of motorway, particularly at junction 3 of the M20, is of great national significance. As my hon. Friend will be aware, all the channel tunnel road traffic from East Anglia, the midlands, the north, the west, the south-west and the south coast using the motorway system will converge on junction 3 and proceed from there to the channel tunnel. If my hon. Friend continues to allow the widening scheme to delay to the extent that he appears willing to accept, there is a serious danger of a traffic shambles on this section of the M20 almost as soon as the channel tunnel opens. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will look immediately at the timetable for the scheme and I urge him to bring forward the implementation date to the earliest possible, certainly well before 1995.
What about the 286 houses which are now in the Department of Transport's ownership? As I have said to my hon. Friend, and in correspondence with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, the management of those houses has been far from satisfactory. Many of the houses have been vacant, squatters have moved in, and properties have been subject to poor maintenance and remote management from Eastbourne. Those factors have made it that much more difficult for people in the surrounding areas to sell their houses. What is the Department's policy towards those houses? Will they be sold or will they be rented on a permanent basis, and if so, to whom? The critical thing is that the temporary nature of the occupancy of those homes must be ended as quickly as possible. We are talking about what were once settled, stable communities and they want to revert to that pattern. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend will give the highest priority to re-establishing homes along this section of the M20 that are under permanent tenure, whether they are owned outright, rented or under shared ownership.
Column 1290
Permanence is the key factor in bringing back stability and, I hope, a reasonable degree of tranquillity to the estates.I am sorry to have offered my hon. Friend such a barrage of criticism of his Department. If my hon. Friend had faced, in his constituency, the dismay and distress of so many of my constituents, caused by the Department of Transport, I am confident that he would make a speech no less critical of the Department than my own. 2.51 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope) : I acknowledge the genuine concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on behalf of his constituents. No group of people can ever find it easy to tolerate a major road building scheme in their area. This particular scheme has been the subject of a lot more difficulty and delay than either I or the Department would have wished.
When the scheme was included in the 1989 White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", it was part of the Government's expanded roads programme, which covered a large number of schemes. When one is announcing additions to the roads programme, it is impossible, even with the best will in the world, to guarantee that one knows exactly the time in which all of those additions will be built.
First, one announces an addition to the roads programme and then one must obtain the advice of consultants through competitive tender. One then considers their advice as to the best way in which to implement the proposals.
When the White Paper was published, the Department hoped that the widening of junctions 5 to 8 and of junctions 3 to 5 would be able to proceed together, according to the same timetable. That is why the letter written to my right hon. Friend's constituent at the end of May 1989 cited a certain timetable.
My right hon. Friend knows better than anyone about the complexity of widening the motorway from three lanes to four in this constrained part of the M20, which runs between built-up areas. Unfortunately, when the consultants considered the proposal it became immediately apparent that it would not be possible to deal with the widening of junctions 3 to 5 on the same time scale as that for the widening between junctions 5 and 8. That is part of the background to the delay.
My right hon. Friend regrets the expenditure incurred in purchasing many houses, but he was at the forefront in campaigning for the Government to make their arrangements sufficiently flexible to allow them to purchase those houses and thereby tackle the blight that any new road scheme causes. If the blight period had been shorter, we might have had to acquire fewer houses, but I suspect that, having acquired so many houses already, we shall now have to acquire fewer under the extended powers, to which I referred my right hon. Friend in answer earlier today.
I am not saying that if we had been able to act more quickly there would not have been so much blight or over such a long period, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that there was no malice aforethought. The proposal was included in the roads programme. The original strategy was to widen the M20 in time for the opening of the channel tunnel, but, unfortunately, that did not prove possible.
| Next Section
| Home Page |