House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 May 1995

Column 256

Those proposals include enhanced inspections and more access to suspected nuclear facilities; a requirement on states to provide more detailed information than hitherto; and environmental monitoring, such as soil sampling around suspected sites. We strongly support those proposals, and will work for their early implementation. Many hon. Members have referred to the bargain which they assert the treaty represents between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. That is a bargain by the nuclear weapon states, undertaken in article VI of the treaty, to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament in return for the non-nuclear states agreeing never to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept safeguards on their nuclear activities. However, article VI does not set a timetable for disarmament negotiations. We do not believe that setting an arbitrary timetable would make disarmament negotiations any more likely to succeed.

All that said, let us consider what the nuclear weapon states have done. Some have claimed that they have not kept the bargain. That charge was echoed by Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Stretford. Those charges betray an extraordinary reluctance to recognise the enormity of the changes that have taken place over the past decade.

Article VI calls for an end to the nuclear arms race. Thanks in part to the NPT, but of course also to the great changes in east-west relations, it is obvious that there is now no nuclear arms race. Indeed, there is almost a race to reduce nuclear weapons. Missile warheads and launchers are being dismantled, bombers are being destroyed and silos emptied.

Mr. Corbyn: So why are we building more?

Mr. Davis: If we had followed the CND nostrums which I hear shouted across the Chamber, we would never have imagined, let alone managed, that enormous achievement.

Under the INF and START agreements between the United States and Russia, thousands of intermediate and other tactical nuclear weapons are being put out of commission and more than 17,000 strategic weapons and bombers eliminated. The US Administration have said that they are dismantling some 2,000 nuclear weapons a year, and the Russians are deactivating their systems ahead of schedule.

Mr. Corbyn: What about Britain?

Mr. Davis: Britain has played a full part in that disarmament process. Although we have always maintained our deterrent at the minimum level commensurate with the strategic environment, we have eliminated our land and surface maritime tactical nuclear capability; reduced by more than 50 per cent. the number of WE177 nuclear bombs carried by our aircraft, and announced that all remaining WE177 bombs will be withdrawn by the end of 1998-- I noted the grudging comment of the hon. Member for Stretford--when they will not be replaced by other systems, which is the key point.

The net effect of those changes is that, by the end of the decade, the UK will have only one nuclear weapons system, one fifth fewer warheads, and three fifths less explosive power than during the 1970s. That is a major

Column 257

reduction. Even when START II is implemented, British nuclear forces will be considerably less than 10 per cent. of the total nuclear forces available to the Americans or to Russia.

Our deterrence is truly minimal. If the rest of the world had seen cuts of that magnitude in other types of weaponry, the world might be much safer and its peoples less vulnerable to regional strife. It is no good the Opposition harping on about the replacement of Polaris by Trident. What matters is total capability.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move to the next topic.

Column 258

County Structure Plan (Lancashire)

11.30 am

Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North): I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the Lancashire structure plan, but I find it more than a little extraordinary that no Liberal Democrats are present. I am sure that many of my constituents in wards which are represented by Liberal Democrat councillors and are facing significant pressure on the few remaining open spaces in the town will draw the appropriate conclusions in the local government elections tomorrow.

The Lancashire structure plan is still in its consultation phase and there is therefore little that my hon. Friend the Minister can say about its specific provisions, but it is right that Lancashire Members should have the chance to comment on them and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to the more general issues that this and similar plans raise.

Much in the structure plan is commendable. It sets a broad strategic approach which attempts to deal with some of the main problems facing the county. It addresses the need to balance economic growth with a more sustainable pattern of development. It attempts to improve the image of the county so as to maximise inward investment. It looks at how to correct past imbalances in development between the west and east of the county. Those are all laudable objectives and important issues that the structure plan is right to identify. The devil, however, is in the detail: the aspect of the plan that most concerns me is the damaging effect that it will have on Lancashire's environment and it is that aspect, above all else, that I shall concentrate on today.

There is now a widespread appreciation of the Government's environmental credentials. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in particular has demonstrated his personal commitment to the environment and has won the support and trust of many previously sceptical pressure groups. The Government have addressed with determination great global environmental issues such as climate change and global warming and as a consequence green politics appears less and less to preoccupy the minds of the public; yet still I sense a fundamental unease about the future, a feeling that what people care about--their own local environment--is under growing threat, and that the countryside of England is gradually but relentlessly being worn away.

Sometimes, perhaps as yet infrequently, that unease explodes into passionate demonstrations against plans to bulldoze ancient woodlands or to cover water meadows in tarmac. It is the same sense of unease about which the great English poet Philip Larkin wrote when he was commissioned by the Department of the Environment when it was set up in 1972. Conservative Members know that the Minister is particularly fond of poetry, so he will not mind my quoting Philip Larkin's poem, "Going, Going". He wrote:

Column 259

"I thought it would last my time--the sense that, beyond the town, there would always be fields and farms.

Where the village louts could climb Such trees as were not cut down;-- It seems, just now, to be happening so very fast; Despite all the land left free For the first time I feel somehow that it isn't going to last, That before I snuff it, the whole Boiling will be bricked in Except for the tourist parts-- And that will be England gone, The shadows, the meadows, the lanes, The Guildhalls, the carved choirs, There'll be books; it will linger on In galleries; but all that remains For us will be concrete and tyres".

We cannot underestimate the despair, alienation and anger that people feel about the destruction of the countryside, particularly when it is happening in their own backyards on the edges of towns and villages. That is the big environmental issue today. That is what people are really concerned about: the destruction of their piece of countryside, their green lung, their little open space. We cannot underestimate the power of those feelings because we can only guess at the emotions, the memories, the sense of security, well-being and community that are bound up in the land.

I cannot help thinking that, unless we--all of us, the Government and local authorities--decide to stop bulldozing the countryside and look for sustainable alternatives, there will be dozens more demonstrations like the one this week against the M65 in Stanworth valley and hundreds more police will have to be deployed to pull protestors down from the branches and the blossom before, finally, the endless tides of concrete wash over us all.

When Larkin wrote his poem, much less of England had been bricked in and much less had been destroyed. This weekend, we will celebrate the end of the second world war, but I doubt whether many of those who did not return from the conflict would recognise their country today. In the south-west alone, since 1945 the urban area has increased by two thirds. That is an increase of 84,000 hectares. An area of countryside half the size of Greater Manchester has been lost to development.

One third of the north-west is now urban. It is the most urban region in the country; yet Lancashire county council is planning more concrete and more tarmac. Its structure plan--which it calls, perhaps ironically, "Greening the County"--plans to seize for building and industry 3,700 hectares, much of it green fields at the edges of our towns and villages. It plans to drive a new road through the heart of some of the most beautiful countryside in east Lancashire by extending the M65 beyond Colne, and it is planning a further 23 road schemes in the county. That is not greening the county but greying it.

I want to deal with four aspects of the structure plan before discussing some of the wider issues on which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will elaborate.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South): Before my hon. Friend discusses those four points, does he agree that one of the ironies of what he has been saying is that the same people whom we have seen on television this week--the demonstrators in the trees and lobbying on the single issue--are frequently activists for left-wing parties, but are opposed by the very left-wing Lancashire county

Column 260

council? It is perhaps because of the irony of that conflict--it is the left arguing with itself--that just one Labour Lancashire Member dares to come to the debate; all the others cannot be bothered.

Mr. Elletson: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a telling point. It is clear that the Labour party in Lancashire cannot be regarded as having any credible environmental credentials at all.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Elletson: I am delighted to give way and to have a Scottish perspective on our problems in Lancashire.

Dr. Reid: I do not want to antagonise the hon. Gentleman, but if it were not for the Scottish perspective and Scottish money, his town of Blackpool would be less prosperous than it is at the moment, as he knows. At the risk of ruining his career and mine, I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed his speech so far: it is nice to hear a speech that does not sound like a desiccated calculating machine when it comes to planning issues.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great risk in trying to portray those who are concerned with the environment as merely on the left, for the sake of making a party political point? The points that the hon. Gentleman makes in such resounding fashion about the quality of life are of concern to people right across the political spectrum and to many people who are not involved in party politics or, indeed, in regional issues.

Mr. Elletson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course I recognise the great contribution made by Scottish people to Blackpool's economy, and I accept some of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I had hoped that, inspired by my quotation from one of England's great poets, he would himself quote Robert Burns. The Lancashire structure plan rightly concludes that much of the pressure on the countryside results from demands generated in towns, and identifies some of the problems associated with the quality of housing in urban areas. The Government must take those points seriously, and I hope that they will do so, particularly in the context of the assisted area and urban aid programmes. I must say--I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) agrees with me--that it is a disgrace that Blackpool, whose town centre has pockets of some of the highest unemployment in the north of England, receives no assistance whatever at a time when some far less deserving cases in the area are inundated with it. The plan is also right to state that there would be less pressure for rural development if towns were more attractive to residents, developers and investors. That is in line with much of the Government's current thinking. My own concern about the issue has led me to look more closely at what is actually being planned. The integrity of our rural areas is of paramount importance: the countryside is an important resource for everyone, town and country dwellers alike. Once despoiled, a landscape is lost for a generation or more; farmland, once built on, is unlikely ever to be returned to agriculture.

The structure plan therefore rightly proposes putting land use policy on a more sustainable footing. It stresses the need to protect the rural environment--yet it proposes

Column 261

a staggering amount of development, based on thoroughly unconvincing statistics, which constitutes nothing less than an assault on Lancashire's countryside.

The county proposes that Lancashire's districts should allocate land for 66,000 new houses between 1991 and 2006. At present levels of density, that would require more than 6,000 acres--or 2,500 hectares--of land, much of which would be on green fields at the edges of towns and villages. Some of it would inevitably be on the few remaining open spaces in towns such as Blackpool, which is expected to provide some 4,000 extra houses at a rate of 270 units per year. In rural areas, the rate of development would be much higher. I consider that level of development neither necessary nor sustainable. It is based on a projected population increase of 71,000 between 1991 and 2006, including a migratory element of 35,000. It also assumes a need to house growing numbers of smaller households in similar accommodation because of new social trends, such as greater longevity and the breakdown of traditional family relationships. Those factors are bound to have an effect on population growth in the county, but I nevertheless believe that the county council is overstating its housing need. Official estimates of population and migratory change--in particular, those from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys--are lower than the projections used by the county. That is not always the case in other areas. The OPCS calculates a population increase of only 48,700, with 28,300 net migrations; it also notes the falling birth rate, which the county fails to take into account.

Whatever the true figures, there is little doubt that the county is prepared to surrender green-field sites far too easily, and has not concentrated nearly enough attention on brown-field and recycled land. It is extraordinary that the plan should concentrate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for example, on developing green-field sites around Poulton, without mentioning the possibilities of housing development around the former commercial docks in Fleetwood.

It is also true to say that the type of housing proposed in such areas-- mostly three and four-bedroom detached houses on small plots--does not reflect what is likely to be a growing demand for a higher proportion of smaller, low-cost properties built at higher densities for individuals and single parents rather than families. That important issue needs to be examined again, not just by the county council and local authorities but, in a wider context, by the Government. I hope that in the not too distant future the Environment Select Committee may be able to examine it, too; I certainly feel that it should be dealt with more fully in planning guidance. I also believe that the Government should give much more consideration to the problems associated with migration from metropolitan areas, and the extent to which shire counties such as Lancashire are expected to plan for them. After all, such migrations are a sign of deteriorating quality of life in the cities: they show that life in the cities is becoming less and less attractive to ordinary people. In such circumstances, planned over-provision of land for housing by a county such as Lancashire simply fuels demand; it sends the wrong signals to people in general and developers in particular.

Column 262

As we all know, the developer is much more likely to focus on areas of greatest demand, where the cost of land is lowest and the market rate for house prices is highest. We should give a much clearer signal to local authorities not to allocate precious land for housing simply to accommodate migration from metropolitan areas as a result of failure to satisfy the expectations of city dwellers in regard to their environment and quality of life.

The other main issue dealt with in the plan is transport. Much of what it says is good. It recognises the problems associated with increased car use. It suggests that there could be an extra 150,000 cars on Lancashire's roads by 2006--a truly horrifying statistic. It rightly emphasises the importance of public transport and the need to site development to reduce dependence on private cars, as well as the importance of traffic calming and management schemes and encouraging simpler forms of travel such as cycling and walking. All those initiatives are good, and the plan is right to concentrate on them. However, it also proposes a significant number of new road projects. Those projects include what the plan calls a strategic route linking Lancashire with west Yorkshire and the Humber ports, which would mean an extension of the M65 beyond Colne. It also proposes 23 other road schemes. I shall not go into the details of every scheme, but that level of road building suggests a slightly less than "green" approach, to say the least. Some of the proposed schemes would have a severe impact on sites of special scientific interest, special protection areas and Ramsar and county heritage sites.

I believe that the county council is making a fundamental mistake in trying to solve traffic problems rather than transport problems. It also blandly assumes a direct correlation between road building and economic growth. The reality, as I am sure my hon. Friends will agree, is much more complex: sometimes that is the case, and sometimes it is not. Before we commit ourselves to such a vast increase in planned road building, we should be sure of the overall net benefits. The structure plan does little more than guess at those; nor does it estimate the amount of extra traffic that is likely to be generated by such a huge volume of road building. In fact, most of those road schemes will not ultimately solve traffic problems. They will make them worse. In many instances, they will actually induce increases in traffic, with all the consequences that that will entail in terms of pollution, global warming and reduced quality of life. There is no doubt that in many instances the proposed road construction will seriously damage the environment and countryside and that will be widely resented by local people. I genuinely welcome much of what the structure plan says about the development of alternative forms of transport, and particularly the emphasis on Blackpool's unique tram system, which has the potential to be developed as a light rail network for the Fylde. I know that many of my hon. Friends are keen on that idea and it should receive the closest possible attention both from local authorities and from the Government. I also welcome the plan's observations about the importance of Blackpool airport, which still has potential for significant expansion of great economic benefit to the whole of the Fylde.

I am concerned, however, about the structure plan's proposal for a massive new rail freight and regional business centre on a green-field site in South Ribble, despite the existence of suitable sites elsewhere. The

Column 263

proposal involves the unnecessary development of a green-field site and will undermine efforts to regenerate derelict sites in urban areas.

All these issues lead to general concerns, one of which relates to the planning process itself. How should the county structure plan fit into the broader framework of national objectives and regional planning? The Lancashire structure plan is being produced outside the context of regional planning and without regard to the general direction of recent Government planning policy guidance. The deposit edition of the structure plan was written before publication of the consultation draft of the Government's regional planning guidance for the North West. That seems very odd. In Lancashire, so far as I am aware, the chicken does not usually come before the egg; however, it appears to have done so on this occasion.

What is the point of producing regional planning guidance if it does not form the basis of county structure plans and if its assumptions are not accepted by county planners, as clearly in this case--particularly with regard to housing--they are not? There seems little point in employing a large number of civil servants to produce plans in Manchester if those plans are simply ignored by an even larger number of county planning officials in Preston. It is little wonder that our planning objectives sometimes appear confused and contradictory.

The structure plan also illustrates another major environmental concern about land use designations. Essentially, we must ask ourselves what price we put on the environmental landscape value of different parts of the countryside. Throughout Lancashire there are valuable landscape and amenity areas with widely differing characteristics which are outside the boundaries of national designations such as green belt land and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The boundaries of an area of outstanding natural beauty are entirely arbitrary, and it cannot be argued that all land outside those boundaries is of lesser landscape value. Lancashire is full of examples of some of the most beautiful countryside in England, much of it in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Much of that land is outside the boundaries of areas of outstanding natural beauty and is therefore without the protection that that designation affords.

I do not believe that the structure plan acknowledges the importance of differing characteristics and the relative values of landscapes. The Government need to give much clearer guidance in this area. There is much more fundamental concern about the Government's response to the threat to the countryside, and I am sure that it is an issue about which the Government, the Secretary of State and Ministers are deeply concerned.

There are two ways in which the Government can respond to the threat: first, through the planning system and, secondly, through measures to tackle the problem where it can be most readily solved--in the towns. The marriage between environmental objectives and the planning system has hardly been a whirlwind elopement. The planning system has begun to acknowledge the enormous pressures on the countryside and the damage that that has caused.

Recent planning policy guidance for town centres and for out-of-town retail developments, for instance, have begun to place a greater onus on developers. I believe that that trend should be extended, so that the onus is on all

Column 264

developers, not just retailers, to prove that their proposals will not harm the local environment or substantially damage the character of the countryside. National planning guidance should seek to play a much greater role in influencing the type, character and design of housing and industrial development in or at the edges of the countryside.

There must also be a clear presumption that rural land should not be released for development if suitable urban or infill sites exist elsewhere. The Government are rightly concerned about the vitality and viability of our town centres. It is the state of many of our towns which, after all, has caused such overwhelming pressures to be placed on the countryside. If our towns become places of ugliness and despair, where crime and vandalism are rife, it is inevitable that people will seek to leave them and move to the countryside. Other countries--particularly Germany--have addressed the problem and ensured that town centres are vibrant places in which people want to live. We must make towns popular and attractive places again, not only by loading the planning system in their favour but by ensuring that we maximise grants and incentives for inner urban and brown-field development and regeneration. That is the only way to realise the full potential of our towns and cities and restore them to their former glory. It is also the only sure long-term way to protect the countryside so we can pass on our magnificent rural heritage unspoilt to our children.

The next few years will show that this issue, as illustrated by the Lancashire structure plan, is the most important environmental challenge facing this country. I will end by quoting a few more words of poetry, from "The Deserted Village" written by Oliver Goldsmith some 200 years ago. I hope that this will inspire the Minister to ensure that Goldsmith's nightmare vision does not become a reality: "Even now the devastation has begun,

and half the business of destruction done, even now, me thinks as pondering here I stand, I see the rural virtues leave the land". Unless we determine resolutely to defend our countryside, we shall bequeath a legacy of desolation, drabness, concrete and tyres to future generations.

11.55 am

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): When I saw that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) had been granted this debate, I wondered what line he would pursue. Like other Conservative Members, he has criticised Lancashire county council but, as a former county councillor himself, he is not quite as hostile to the council as some other Conservative Members.

I share the view of the majority of Lancashire Members of Parliament that we would have preferred a unitary system of local government for Lancashire, rather than the shire county, but I have never attacked the county council because I recognise the good work that it has done.

I found it strange that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) described Lancashire county council as an extremist left-wing county council. I believe that it could be described as a moderate, sensible, progressive or positive county council, because it has tried to address the problems facing Lancashire since Labour took majority control for the first time under the present structure of local government in 1981.

Column 265

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North referred to VE day. I can remember VE day as I was evacuated to Burnley at the time of the V1s and V2s. I can remember having a bonfire just opposite where my grandmother lived in Burnley, and I also remember that that weekend was the first time I ever went to Blackpool. Lancashire is now very different from the Lancashire that existed during the war, and I have no doubt that local government--the boroughs, the former county borough councils or the county councils--has played a positive part in that.

One of the major changes in Lancashire has been in its industries. Burnley was dependent on coal mining and cotton, but coal has completely gone and cotton has almost gone from the whole county. When I was a young boy, I did not believe that the sun ever shone in Burnley. I never saw blue sky or the sun--even in summer--because of the pall of smoke over the town. Local government has played a role in changing that.

Under the structure plan, local government is showing how it believes Lancashire should address the problems that will face the county in the rapidly approaching next century.

I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Blackpool, North said, but I fear that if restrictions and restraints were drawn round Lancashire, as he suggested, it could not attract industry, provide employment and survive in the 21st century.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North mentioned the M65, and I have always been a supporter of that road, which was originally called the Calder valley motorway. At present, a motorway goes from Blackburn to Colne--many local people call it the motorway from Tesco to Asda because it ends in a field and starts in a nonsensical place--and it is outrageous that we still do not have connections to the M6 and M61.

I recognise that people have the right to protest, which they have done and action has been taken against them. I have no doubt that if we want investment, jobs and people to create wealth, so that towns in east Lancashire such as Burnley and Blackburn survive, we must have those connections to the motorways. When people are considering investing they always ask about the communications and whether they can get their goods away from Burnley if they open a factory in the town. Communications are the key.

The M65 has been debated and argued about on many occasions. It was agreed that it should be reinstated in the roads scheme and is to go ahead. I look forward to the day when the westwards extension to the M6 and M61 is open and benefiting the people of my area. I accept that the argument for going eastwards into Yorkshire is very different. I support that proposal and make no apologies for doing so. I always support environmental causes, but one has to weigh the environmental advantages and economic benefits of motorways, as well as the disadvantages. There still needs to be a debate on that issue; I would not necessarily share the view of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North on that.

In referring to the other 23 roads and the M65, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North implied that the county council is obsessed with roads rather than other transport issues, which is misleading. The county council has supported rail development, electrification and

Column 266

improvement and wants more investment in our rail system. Opposition Members do not believe that privatisation will help to achieve those improvements--Conservative Members will probably disagree. The railways should remain in the public sector and investment should be made.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North failed to mention the tragic loss of the InterCity trains to Blackpool, although he must recognise that it is a loss. I am sure that, like me, he recognises that, if the Blackpool line were electrified through to Manchester, it would make it much easier for electrified InterCity trains to continue to Blackpool. I am sure that we would get unanimity on that view, as it is something that we all want, and the county council would certainly support it.

The county council strongly supports Manchester airport and the second runway proposal. It recognises, however, and has never pretended otherwise, the case for development and progress at Liverpool, if the investment could be made on its merits.

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre): What about Blackpool?

Mr. Pike: The county council has always said that three airports serve the north-west, with Blackpool being the third. Manchester is a major international airport and there is no doubt that it will be developed.

The people of Lancashire will express their view of the Conservative party's policies on many of the issues in the elections tomorrow. I am sure that I will be much happier about the election results than Conservative Members, or the Liberals, who are not represented in this debate.

It is somewhat strange that the debate should take place today because, as hon. Members representing Lancashire will know, consultation on the Lancashire structure plan is taking place in the Dunkenhalgh hotel at Clayton-le-Moors this week. It started yesterday. Mr. Philip Critchley CB, is acting as chairman of the panel and the planning inspector has appointed Mr. Ernest Smith as the second member of the panel.

I do not know how many hon. Members responded to the original consultation on the structure plan. I certainly did so and I am sure that others who responded will have received a similar letter to one sent to me, which said that I would not be invited to take part in the public consultation but that my views would be taken into account. The county is going about the plan in the right way, has allowed people to put their views and is examining the issues that are the subject of the debate.

Among the subjects to be examined during the consultation are the county road network, urban transport, which certainly covers public transport, the trans-Pennine strategic route and green belts, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool, North referred--I accept that the latter is very important, as we do not want the green areas of Lancashire to be totally eroded. The list of subjects under examination also includes regional business location, development in central, north and east Lancashire and in the countryside, minerals and waste.

The last two are of great importance. Waste regulation is one of the subjects affected by the Environment Bill, which is in Committee at present. I support the view that waste regulation should be taken over by the environment protection agency. That is not a criticism of Lancashire county council, but a view that I reached while serving

Column 267

on the Select Committee on the Environment some years ago, because I do not believe that one can be a poacher and a gamekeeper. It is interesting that environmental issues in Lancashire, and the way in which the plan has been considered, have been recognised in Europe and internationally as an example to local government. The new Lancashire county structure plan, "Greening the Red Rose County", is one of the first in the country to be based on a strategy for sustainable development. The county council's pioneering environmental work has achieved European and global recognition. The pioneering green audit of Lancashire was announced at the Rio summit as one of the top 25 local environmental initiatives worldwide. In April, the European Commission presented the county council with one of Europe's most prestigious environmental awards for its green audit, environmental action plan and structure plan, which are all models of sustainable development for others to follow. With Lyon, it won joint first prize in the EC-sponsored European urban and regional town planning awards. The judges commended it very highly and it is important that we recognise that.

As I said, minerals are one of the subjects under discussion at the Dunkenhalgh hotel. As I have told the county council time after time, it should oppose all plans for opencast extraction and the re-opening of former coal mines. In 1995, there is no case for extracting what, in most cases, is low-quality and poor-value coal. Secondly, all my experience is that when any such developments have taken place in my constituency, agreements on aspects of reinstatement work and environmental protection have not been observed. I hope that, within the plan, we will be firm and of the overriding view that we should not approve such development.

Lancashire county council has suggested a sensible and balanced approach and has considered the needs of a county in which we can live, be educated and provided with all the services and all the other things that make for a normal life. The plan is balanced and the council has made a fair judgment of the environmental implications. I do not necessarily agree with every item, but the council's approach is positive and sensible and will lead to a vibrant and successful Lancashire in the next century.

12.8 pm

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd (Morecambe and Lunesdale): I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on his speech and on attending a debate that is clearly dominated by representatives of the Conservative party in Lancashire. We cannot fail to notice that the hon. Gentleman is the only Labour party representative from Lancashire in the Chamber. His colleagues have doubtless asked him to speak for them and I expect that Liberal Democrat representatives, who are so closely allied to the Labour party, have asked the hon. Gentleman to make their contribution as well.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on raising this debate. He speaks with the valuable experience of a former county councillor with great knowledge of, interest in and commitment to Lancashire. He has done the House a good service by giving us an opportunity to debate matters of concern. Many local government issues have national implications on which we all have strong views, and it is only right that we should deal with them in this way. I

Column 268

hope that we can have such a debate every year. If my hon. Friend pursues such a course of action, I shall certainly attend.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): So shall I

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt be elevated to other positions on the Front Bench and will not reply to a debate on this subject next year.

As so many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, I shall deal with just one aspect of the county structure plan: the western bypass, an important road in my constituency. This matter will loom large in the debate in county hall next week when the roads programme will be discussed. I started to press for the road when I first became a Member of Parliament 16 years ago. It was then called the M6 link. I noticed that the hon. Member for Burnley called it something else. Over the years, those great ideas tend to change names. One reason why the road is no longer called the M6 link in my constituency is that part of it--the Lancaster to Morecambe bypass, phase 1 --has already been built. We now need to complete that first stage by building a link to the motorway. The two options are a western bypass, favoured by the county, and a northern bypass, favoured by others. I shall not discuss the merits of the arguments, which will be considered next week.

I am anxious that the road should be completed. It would be a county road and is currently the subject of an environmental impact assessment. The completed road would link Heysham port and industrial estate to the motorway network. I hope that I can persuade the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North that the road will be of great importance to the county. I hope to take a delegation of local business men to see the Department of Transport next week.

In considering the impact of roads on the environment, it should be recognised that the arguments go both ways. Some reasons for road building are environmentally and economically benign. I believe that the M6 link, as I shall call it, in its generic way satisfies those criteria. The port of Heysham in the heart of the town is a significant but greatly under- utilised asset which, under Sealink's ownership, is developing ever- increasing trade. Over the past 15 years, capacity has been doubled and new trade routes have been opened to Northern Ireland.

I hope that I am not over-optimistic in saying that the trade may develop still further on the back of the peace dividend, which we all hope will succeed in Northern Ireland, and there will be even more trade from the port of Heysham across the northern Irish sea. If that happens, it is unrealistic to envisage that trade continuing other than by means of motor vehicle on to the delivery systems of the United Kingdom. The inevitable increase in traffic pressure cannot be met without relieving the urban centres of Lancaster and Morecambe by completing the motorway link.

The second important and strategic reason why Heysham needs that link to the motorway system is that it has a long-standing industrial estate. A great ICI plant was there and an enormous amount of land is derelict. The city council owns many acres of land on the estate and has allocated the area to building a new industrial estate. It plans to reclaim derelict land and put industrial units in the area. It is environmentally beneficial that that

Column 269

should be the location for new industry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North recognised will be needed.

We must clean up the area. If there is no incentive so to do, the area will not be cleaned up. We must provide sites for industry but we do not want to take new green-field sites for that purpose. That old green-field site has already been rendered derelict and is available to industry. It must be right to build industry in such areas. As the hon. Member for Burnley said, developers who wish to enter an area want to know when roads will be built as road communications are a significant factor in assessing whether to invest in that part of the north-west.

I shall not dwell at length on the third reason, but simply say that terrific stresses are caused in Lancaster and Morecambe by traffic demands on the area. Everyone who visits the city at rush hour and other hours of the day will know that that is so. In his opening words, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North said that we should make town centres environmentally enjoyable places. I entirely agree. Lancaster is not my constituency but my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett- Bowman) could not be here this morning. I am sure that she wants cities such as Lancaster once more to be pleasant places in which to live. No one could dispute that Lancaster is not an environmentally pleasant place to live because of the enormous amount of traffic generated in the city centre. Traffic must be relieved in such areas. I am reliably informed that the completion of the western bypass or M6 link would relieve traffic that comes through Lancaster on its way to my constituency by some 31 per cent. and would end some of that painful congestion.

It is a national policy to move away from road building. I subscribe to that general principle as I do not want our countryside to be destroyed, but that objective has not been as openly and clearly defined to the House as I should like. I hope that, in his reply, my hon. Friend the Minister can give us a more precise idea about it. Any policy to move away from the sort of road building that occurred in the post-war period must be qualified in many areas. I can think of only two, but they are particularly germane to the road that I am discussing. The policy should be qualified by recognising that we must, none the less, build roads where congestion has become intolerable. We must have a policy that deals with such congestion. It is no use making the bald statement that we shall build no more roads if we have no policy to deal with appalling congestion. One aspect of that policy is to build a road as, in some cases, it would be good for the environment to do so. I accept the proposition that we should build no more strategic motorways across the country and that people should travel by rail or public transport, but it is absurd to say that we do not need roads if they could relieve appalling congestion.

That criterion must apply to the road that I am discussing. I recognise that this is a complicated matter and that, every time a road is built, road usage increases, but we still need a policy on congestion.

Roads that have already been started must be completed. Phase 1 of the Heysham to Morecambe road has already been completed and phase 2 would link that road to the motorway. If we do not complete phase 2, we

Column 270

shall invalidate and fail to take advantage of the potential benefits of phase 1. This road goes virtually nowhere. It is by no means over-utilised, so we must build on the investment in phase 1 by completing phase 2.

Both those qualifications apply to the road about which I am speaking and I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister in due course.

12.19 pm

Next Section

Home Page