House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Oct 1992

Column 1313

council was not conceived as a supranational talking shop with a nebulous co-ordinating role. It has clear functions to lead on United Kingdom-wide strategic issues, especially performance and excellence, to encourage rationalisation of sport and the voluntary sector and to promote the United Kingdom's interests internationally.

The precise split of the resources of the present Sports Council between the successor bodies is a matter on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State awaits proposals from the Sports Council. We expect the United Kingdom sports commission to have the resources necessary to do the job properly, based on the functions which the Government have specified in the policy document "Sport and Active Recreation".

The Manchester bid for the Olympic games has been widely welcomed on both sides of the House. In view of the comments of several hon. Members, I give a further assurance, if any such assurance were necessary--I guess that it is as we approach the public spending round--that resources are available for the Olympic velodrome and arena and for the acquisition and preparation of the stadium site. Let us not be in any doubt about that.

On tax issues, although we welcome the valuable contribution made by sporting bodies, successive Governments have believed that it would not be right to single them out for special privileges which equally worthy organisations do not enjoy. Many sports organisations are unincorporated associations, which means that they pay no tax on income from subscriptions and many funding-raising activities, nor do they pay any tax on gratis donations. That tax treatment recognises that many of their activities are not undertaken for commercial reasons.

To extend tax exemption to activities carried out on a commercial basis, even though profits are intended to be used for the benefit of sport, would raise wider questions of fairness to taxpayers. Furthermore, it would put sports organisations in a more favourable position than charities, which are exempt on trading income only, in limited circumstances. Any change in capital allowances is a matter for Treasury Ministers to consider.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, mentioned Great Barr grant-maintained school in Birmingham. Sadly, it has become apparent that agreement is unlikely to be reached between the school and Birmingham city council about the dual use of facilities on that site. The matter has been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for determination. I am sure that the House will understand that in those circumstances I cannot comment on the merits of the case. The standard procedure for determination incorporates a period of consultation with the local authority and the Education Assets Board.

Mr. Pendry : Will the Under-Secretary assure the House that he will have an input into that determination with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education?

Mr. Key : Yes, I shall raise that issue with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools when I see him in the near future. Each case must be considered on its merits. There is no standard timetable, but I shall inquire from my hon. Friend about the progress being made.

Column 1314

On playing fields, I appreciate the case for automatic eligibility and that playing fields should remain for the benefit of the community in perpetuity. The case-by-case approach means that each application can be considered on its merits. Nearly 3,000 playing fields or recreation grounds in England are registered as charities. We must continue the case-by-case approach.

I have been asked what the Government are doing to help the National Playing Fields Association and the Sports Council to prevent the loss of recreational land. The Sports Council's grant-in-aid settlement from the Government in 1991-92 included £500,000 to enable the establishment of a register of recreational land. Work is in hand on the register, with the Sports Council, the National Playing Fields Association and the Central Council of Physical Recreation as co-sponsors. The register should be up and running by May 1993. In addition, planning policy guidance note No.17, issued by the Department of the Environment, emphasised the importance that the Government place on the need for recreational land and open spaces. It asks local authorities to take full account of the community's need for recreational space, to consider the long-term need for playing fields before allowing them to be developed, and to consult sporting bodies when planning for sport and recreation.

On the sale of television rights, I was asked why the Government have not intervened to prevent live premier league matches from being shown exclusively on BSkyB. Although live screening is restricted to BSkyB, more football is probably being shown on terrestrial channels--including live matches--than ever before. The BBC has the right to show extended highlights of premier league matches in "Match of the Day." Live FA cup and European cup matches and highlights of international matches are also shown on terrestrial television. For those who are interested in international football, Channel 4 regularly televises Italian serie A matches on Sunday afternoons. The Broadcasting Act 1990 sets out the framework for the coverage of listed sporting events, which may not be provided on pay-per- view terms. Some hon. Members suggested that that should be extended. The events that are covered are cricket test matches involving England, the Derby, the FIFA world cup finals, the FA cup final, the grand national, the Olympic games, the finals weekend of the Wimbledon tennis championships and any days that the championship overruns, and the Scottish FA cup final. The list does not include live coverage of football games apart from the FA cup final, the Scottish FA cup final and the world cup tournament ; nor has there ever been any suggestion that it should.

The community use of sports facilities, the dual use issue, is being addressed in the Education Bill which has just been placed before the House. I hope that that anomaly can be cleared up without delay. There is no doubt--

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION

Ordered,

That Mr. Jimmy Wray be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and that Mr. Jimmy Boyce be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Column 1315

M20 (Junctions 3 5)

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

2.30 pm

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) : I fear that this week I am not the favourite son of the Department of Transport--perhaps not in any week--because yesterday I voiced my concerns about the Department's rail policies as they may affect my constituents and today my attention is directed to roads with special reference to the widening of the M20 between junctions 3 and 5. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is in his place, has, I am sure, a glowing account in his brief of the Department's conduct of that widening scheme. I shall start by giving him a view from the Tonbridge and Malling end of the telescope.

The Department's critical mistake occurred when the scheme was announced in the May 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity". The announcement was not accompanied by any detail of how the scheme would be carried out. As a result, the maximum possible blight was created. The Department should have carried out its own internal design work. If it had done so even a relatively cursory examination would have led it to the conclusion that it eventually reached--that the widening scheme would have to be carried out essentially within the boundaries of the existing line of the motorway as it is heavily built up on both sides. If the Department of Transport had announced that at the outset, the incidence of blight would have been fractional compared with what has taken place.

Having announced its intention to widen without specifying how, the Department found that it had to serve hundreds of statutory blight notices along the length of this section of motorway. Following the service of those notices the Department acquired, or is in the process of acquiring, about 300 properties along the motorway. At least three quarters of those properties would not have been acquired if a different procedure had been followed. As a result I estimate that about £25 million of taxpayers' money has been unnecessarily spent.

I referred that expenditure to the Comptroller and Auditor General and I am glad to say that Sir John Bourn is currently examining the Department's handling of public money in connection with this widening scheme. I look forward to his conclusions. Unhappily that is not the end of the story and the acute difficulties continue, because the Department is trying to get its money back. It is trying to get its money back by securing vacant possession of the hundreds of houses that it now owns and, by getting vacant possession of houses that are the subject of short-term lettings, it is creating a serious homeless problem which has considerable ramifications for the local housing authority.

I sincerely hope that lessons for the future have been learnt from that scheme. One lesson that I beg the Department to learn is that when it proposes widening schemes in future, they should be done on a basis that minimises the statutory blight created.

My hon. Friend will be aware that when statutory blight is created, particularly if it is on a large scale, secondary blight will often be created alongside the area of statutory blight. That is exactly what has happened in my constituency. Those living immediately adjacent to the

Column 1316

blighted area find it impossible to sell their homes because people are understandably reluctant to buy property immediately adjacent to many properties owned by the Department of Transport--properties which may not be well maintained and in which maintenance standards may be falling, and property that is all on short- term lettings. The Government have dealt with the problem in their Planning and Compensation Act 1991. I wish to make a positive comment on that point. My constituents were afraid that the Secretary of State for Transport would not make proper use--or would make no use whatever--of his discretionary acquisition powers under section 62. I am glad to say that that fear has proved to be wholly unfounded and, as I know from the written answer that I received earlier this week, the Secretary of State has now authorised the acquisition of 18 properties under section 62 and is considering acquiring a further 32. Therefore, he is dealing in a proper, compassionate and sensitive way with some heart rending cases of people who are facing chonic ill health--in some cases terminal illness, mental breakdown, marriage breakdown and so on--and who have been unable to move house when they were desperate to do so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue to exercise his discretionary powers in a compassionate and sympathetic way with the remaining cases.

I wish to put four specific points to my hon. Friend. The first is in the critical area of homelessness that is now being created by the Department of Transport endeavouring to get vacant possession of those hundreds of houses now in the Department's ownership. The difficulty being created is the difference of legal view between the Department of Transport and the housing authority under the Tonbridge and Malling borough council regarding the statutory homeless position that has arisen. I have raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, in a recent letter to me, said : "it is by no means certain that displaced tenants will necessarily place a rehousing liability on the local authority even if they apply to them for accommodation".

The legal view of the Tonbridge and Malling council--a view shared by the Housing Corporation and officials within the Department of the Environment- -is that some statutory liabilities under the homeless persons legislation will certainly fall on the Tonbridge and Malling borough council. They will be short-term rehousing liabilities and, almost certainly, a degree of long -term responsibility for rehousing. That being so, I would regard it as unacceptable if central Government sought to stand aside from the homelessness problem and its financial implications for which they are wholly responsible. Central Government, through the Department of Transport, created the blight in the first place. Central Government acquired the houses, and have decided to let them. Central Government have sought vacant possession of the houses and have asked the tenants to go. Those tenants are left facing homelessness as a result. It is fairly and squarely a central Government responsibility and, in my book, it is also fairly and squarely a central Government financial liability. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the starkest terms that I expect central Government to discharge their financial responsibilities towards Tonbridge and Malling borough council.

Secondly, there were difficulties with the management of the properties in the early stages. A small minority of unsuitable and disruptive tenants were put into the

Column 1317

Department of Transport houses. I thought that those management difficulties had largely been overcome, but I am not sure that they have.

I recently received a letter from a constituent complaining strongly about the menagerie of animals being kept by the Department of Transport's tenant in the adjacent house. I took it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When he replied, he confirmed that four dogs, one of which had to be put down as it was dangerous, and two hunting ferrets had been kept in the property. My constituent, who lived next door, had a nine-month-old baby and both the dogs and ferrets had been escaping into her property. I do not think that it is particularly satisfactory to have a nine-month-old baby and ferrets close together, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will look closely at the need to tighten up and get a grip on the management of the large number of Department of Transport properties.

Thirdly, when the road widening scheme was originally announced in 1989, Department of Transport officials said that they hoped that the scheme would be completed before the channel tunnel opened in 1993. We are now only a few months away from 1993, and nowhere near even starting the construction of the road widening scheme.

In 1991, my hon. Friend's predecessor, Mr. Christopher Chope--who is sadly no longer a Member of Parliament--said that it was hoped to start construction of the widening scheme in 1995, and to complete it two years later. Is it still intended to start construction in 1995? I earnestly hope that it will start soon, particularly as I have many constituents with a legal case for injurious affection compensation against the Department of Transport under the Land Compensation Act 1973 for depreciation in the value of their houses caused by the scheme. Under the provisions of that Act it is not possible to secure compensation until one year after the new highway scheme comes into operation. Therefore, the longer the delay in commencing the scheme, the longer it will take my constituents to receive compensation to which they are legally entitled.

Fourthly, I raised the environmental aspects of the widening scheme in the two previous Adjournment debates on the subject that I have requested. When I raised the matter in the debate on 17 January this year, the then Minister, Mr. Christopher Chope, assured me : "the road will be constructed to a very high standard and the most modern noise attenuation measures will be included in the scheme."-- Official Report, 17 January 1992 ; Vol. 201, c. 1291-92.] I warmly welcome that commitment, but may we have more detail on how it will be discharged? As I said, the road passes through residential areas and noise quietening will be of the utmost importance.

In June, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport urging that consideration be given to the use of porous asphalt for the surface of that section of the motorway. By mid-October, I had not received a reply, and so wrote him a further letter. I do not know whether he has replied in the past day or so, but, to the best of my knowledge, no such reply has yet reached me. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister has an answer for me this afternoon. I hope that the Department will consider

Column 1318

seriously the use of porous asphalt. It is a quiet and safe material, and I warmly welcome the Department's change of policy in relation to its use.

Can my hon. Friend give me any more details today about what form of

"most modern noise attenuation measures"

will be use in connection with the widening scheme, and an assurance that, when those measures are developed and ready for discussion by the Department, there will be full and proper consultation with the local authority and local people?

I seek four specific assurances from my hon. Friend. First, I seek a clear assurance that central Government will discharge their financial responsibilities towards the housing authority in relation to the inescapable homeless persons expenditure that will follow from the Department's gaining vacant possession of the properties alongside the M20. Secondly, I seek an assurance that the management of the properties will be tightened up--and, I hope, improved. Thirdly, I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an assurance about the timetable and an assurance that the widening scheme will be proceeded with as quickly as possible so that my constituents can gain their injurious affection compensation. Finally, I hope that he will assure me that the earlier commitment that the

"most modern noise attenuation measures"

would be adopted will be fully implemented.

2.47 pm

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on securing this Adjournment debate. The fact that it is his third such debate shows his care for his constituents, his deep concern about the matter and his determination that we should pursue all possible efforts to ensure that the road is built as carefully as possible for the benefit of his constituents and the travelling public. I take his comments very seriously, particularly those about blight and the way in which we tackle and plan such roads. Wherever we can learn lessons, we must do so. The widening scheme was one of the first proposals of its kind and since it was devised we have been learning lessons and applying them to schemes that we are now introducing. I am nevertheless grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I respect his efforts on behalf of his constituents. He is quite right to pursue the matter.

I want first to give a general view of the roads in the area because it is important to see the matter in a strategic context. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Government's commitment to a fully improved M20 which, with the proposed A20 route, will provide the main high-quality road artery connecting the channel tunnel, Folkestone and Dover, the M25/M26, London and the rest of the United Kingdom road network.

Much progress has been made. The "missing link" of the M20 between Maidstone and Ashford was completed and opened to traffic in May 1991. Work on the road between junctions 5 and 8 started in July 1991 and is well on target for completion before the channel tunnel opens in 1993. Good progress is being made on all three contracts for the construction of the new A20 between Folkestone and Dover, which also will be completed in time for the tunnel opening.

That leaves the Department's proposals for widening the M20 between junctions 3 and 5, which were announced

Column 1319

in October 1991. As my right hon. Friend knows, publicity brochures were widely circulated in the locality of the proposed works and a local exhibition of plans was held. The comments that were received by the Department are being taken into account in the detailed development of the scheme, which is now under way. Subject to statutory procedures, we hope to start work in 1995. It will take two years to build. We still hope to stick to that timetable. I understand my right hon. Friend's frustration about the time taken to bring the scheme to this stage, and I truly sympathise with his constituents who have suffered uncertainty during this period. One of the great problems of building roads is that it creates blight and uncertainty. It is one of our prime tasks and duties to limit that as far as possible and to offer compensation where we cannot do so.

We must, however, take time in preparing our roads. We must investigate properly the right design for a motorway widening scheme and must develop the project with much care and attention to detail, especially where it goes through an urban area. Many schemes and options were investigated, including a number of ways of widening the road and even a new off-line solution. My right hon. Friend rightly said that where it is proposed to build a road through an urban area it behoves us to be more precise at an earlier early stage. That is a useful suggestion.

Most of the options that we considered would have required substantial land acquisition, and in the end the preferred scheme requires the loss of only a few homes along the motorway. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty that then existed about how the widening would be implemented, it was only right that people living within the 67 m band, who needed to sell their houses but could not do so because of the blighting effects of the scheme, should have been able to require the Department to acquire the properties from them under the planning and blight rules. Not to have allowed that would have penalised unfairly the many local householders who had genuine reasons for wanting to move during the period when the scheme options were being evaluated.

Some regard the 67 m band as too restrictive, but a line must be drawn somewhere, and however one frames the rules, there will always be cases that fall just outside them. We tried to be as generous as possible in interpreting the rules.

My reply today to the two questions tabled by my right hon. Friend explains that, to date, we have acquired 264 dwellings under the statutory blight provisions. A further 28 are in the process of acquisition, following acceptance of blight notices. Acceptance of blight notices within the 67 m band effectively ceased on announcement of the scheme's proposals last October, but section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 embodied discretionary powers which, for the first time, enabled us to acquire at this stage property within and outside the 67m planning blight zone which we expect to be seriously affected by the widening.

Those new powers enable the Department to assist certain carefully defined categories of householders who wish to move but who are not eligible for consideration under the planning and blight provisions. As I announced in the House in January, the Department is now able to consider individual applications for acquisitions under the new powers and we have already agreed to acquire some 18 properties. Further applications are being considered

Column 1320

on their merits and will be dealt with as quickly as possible. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support for that compensation and these proposals.

y right hon. Friend was rightly concerned about the future of the houses currently in the Department's ownership which will be surplus to requirements for our proposed scheme and about arrangements for the rehousing of the tenants living in them when their tenancies expire. I confirm that the majority of the properties that have been acquired will not be needed for the scheme. My officials have been considering the timing and method of disposal of these surplus properties. I appreciate the concern of the local housing authority, Tonbridge and Malling borough council, that it could be faced with a major rehousing problem. I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that the Department is in close liaison with the council about the programme of disposals. Following a number of meetings with officials of the council, the Department of the Environment, the Housing Corporation and the district valuer, the Department is working up a strategy to minimise the potential for homelessness. My right hon. Friend referred to the letter dated 30 September that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to him and said that the Department and the council were in some conflict in their understanding of the situation. I believe that my right hon. Friend's letter clearly sets out our view, but if there is still misunderstanding, that is unsatisfactory and we need to sort out exactly what the position is, and we should do that. Our aim is also to avoid homelessness wherever possible.

As to disposal of surplus vacant property, we have already made an encouraging start despite the downturn in the housing market. Purchasers have been secured for 25 properties, two of which have already been sold. A further batch is under offer and if not sold will be put up for auction in December. Our objective is to dispose of our remaining stock in a phased, orderly manner extending tenancies where necessary to avoid homelessness and to secure value for money.

I take what my right hon. Friend said about suitable tenants because there is, as always, a problem and we need to work hard to ensure that the right people go into the houses as tenants. My right hon. Friend also asked about noise reduction measures for the widened motorway, with particular reference to the use of a blacktop porous asphalt rather than a concrete surface. As a result of my announcement on 29 July on road surface noise, we shall not be using a concrete surface. We may use a blacktop surface, but I take what he said about porous asphalt. We can do far more than we have to surface our roads in a way that makes them quieter and to make more barriers against noise. I feel that it is one of my prime duties to make progress on this. However, we are slightly concerned about porous ashalt where roads are heavily used by traffic, especially by heavy goods vehicles, because we are worried about the lifespan of porous asphalt under such conditions. I shall certainly look at this carefully, but I cannot give any commitment.

As to other measures to reduce noise, we have employed landscape consultants who are looking to landscape the road carefully to make it as attractive as possible within that narrow corridor. We shall be looking at every way possible to reduce noise. We are examining various barriers such as those used on the continent to see

Column 1321

whether we can devise an effective scheme to reduce noise. There will be help with insulation where houses meet the regulations. There will be much time to consult and consider how we should proceed. I hope that I have answered the points raised by my right hon. Friend. I respect the efforts that he makes on

Column 1322

behalf of his constituents with great tenacity. We shall do our best to learn all the necessary lessons. We are keen to consult local peole wherever possible. I know that he will keep me in touch with their views. We shall do everything possible to engineer this road quietly but in a way that will enable it to cope with the heavy traffic without too much disturbance to his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

Written Answers Section

Home Page