House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Apr 1996 (pt 33)

Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): It is important that the Minister should return to the House with that information because the legislation will later be applied to Northern Ireland and we ought to know what is intended for us there.

Mr. Davies: I accept the hon. Gentleman's supportive comment, which plainly shows that there are widespread concerns about the measure. I expressed it in parliamentary terms in the context of both Houses and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his geographical reinforcement of my case.

Mr. Forth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the amendment and the spirit in which he expressed at least that element of his speech. However, I cannot accept his contention or the terms in which he put it, because not only are the fees that are payable to higher education institutions entirely a matter between the Student Loans Company and the institutions, but the Department and I are not aware of the higher education institutions pressing particularly hard on the SLC for a review of the terms of the compensatory payments that they receive. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated somewhat in that regard.

16 Apr 1996 : Column 619

Perhaps concealed in the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) was a spending commitment on behalf of his party that he would arrange, were he ever in a position to do so, to make much more generous payments to the universities. He was not prepared to do more than hint at that, but I have no doubt that in due course, after he has received the permission of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), he will make the commitment which seemed to be implied in his comments.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) that we have extended yet again the deadline for the receipt of tenders from private lending institutions, at the request of one of them, by some two weeks to Monday 13 May. That will give them every opportunity to respond positively and comprehensively to our invitation to tender.

I envisage that at that time, after an appropriate period to consider the tenders, we shall wish to notify the House of the outcome of the tendering process so that everyone is kept fully informed of the position, should the Bill receive royal assent, should its provisions be in place, and depending on the private lenders who respond to the tendering arrangements. It is my wish that the House be kept fully informed. The deadline has been extended, but at a material time after that date I will inform the House fully of the progress being made.

I hope that the House will now feel able to support the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to [Special Entry].

10.31 pm

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North): I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for sparing time, once again, to discuss the intended widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 12. I make no apology for once again bringing the subject before the House. Indeed, the remarks that I make may be somewhat harsh--although in no way do they reflect on my hon. Friend the Minister; we have been very great friends and I think that we will remain so for some considerable time--but certain things need to be said at this stage that have not been said before.

In 1989 the Government published a White Paper on roads. It proposed that the M1 should be widened in one of its busiest spots. The road carries 120,000 vehicles a day, 20 per cent. of which are heavy vehicles. Indeed, I believe that the figure is now even higher. It is one of the main arterial roads in Britain. Since 1989, there have been at least six Ministers with responsibility for roads and traffic, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)--that sounds a long time ago--and ending with the present incumbent, who has been in the job for some time.

I have had at least four Adjournment debates and have raised the subject on the Floor of the House through questions or in speeches on numerous other occasions. I have taken to my hon. Friend and some of his predecessors a number of delegations of pressure groups, residents and constituents from my part of the world. There have been numerous public meetings. There was a public exhibition in November 1992. There are literally mountains of correspondence from my constituents--quite understandably, as the issue affects a great many people. There have been many long hours of discussions both in the constituency, in the Department and in and around my office over a long period.

Unfortunately, despite all the visits and the representations that I have made on behalf of my constituents, more than six and a half years since the proposal to widen the road, we now face another period of uncertainty. Quite frankly, that has made my constituents frustrated, which is natural, and angry.

In the time available, I should like to read to my hon. Friend the Minister and the House from a letter that I recently received from Mr. John Neil, secretary of the M1 Action Group Luton. He has been doing that job ever since the road improvement was first proposed and has been a tower of strength to residents in the part of Luton that will be affected. Talking about residents in the part of the town affected, he says:

"The same residents exposed daily to the ever increasing noise levels and air pollution emanating from the Motorway, have only ever sought from the D.O.T immediate means to bring about some relief to their ongoing suffering. To that end, they have acted as very responsible citizens, with a great deal of tolerance and patience. No demonstrations; no acts of violence or resorting to any other unlawful act. They quite properly called upon their elected Member of Parliament to express their concern over the dreadful conditions under which they are now forced to live. Notwithstanding the efforts of all those involved over the past few years, many residents today entertain feelings of despair since so little has been achieved. It is not difficult to understand such emotions."

16 Apr 1996 : Column 622

It should not be difficult for the House to understand that people who live in the proximity of such a main road, along which some 120,000 vehicles thunder every day, are bound to feel some anger and frustration at the apparent inactivity. Some of these people were living in the area in the late 1950s before the motorway was built.

I shall not go over too much old ground but, with the House's permission, I shall quickly draw to my hon. Friend's attention three matters that are extremely important to this case. The first relates to the Budget and public expenditure plans of last November, the second to the programme, and the third to the compensation available to my constituents in many and varied ways.

My hon. Friend will know that in November, on the basis of the budgetary programme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced some pruning of the roads programme. Many people thought that that was a sensible move. The £365 million project--the widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 15--was also to include part of the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright), who is in his place and whose presence I welcome. The announcement of the delay in that project served to add further uncertainty to an already very difficult situation.

I fully appreciate the need to try to save money, and I would be the first to say that if savings can be made they should be made. However, what bothers my constituents is not only the timing, to which I shall refer later, but the question whether the savings, which my hon. Friend is still considering, should be made on the very worthwhile projects proposed to mitigate the noise and nuisance suffered by my constituents. I refer, for example, to the provision of noise barriers, not just when the road is completed but while the work is being carried out. My hon. Friend has in the past been very helpful in this respect. Such barriers must be of the most modern and up-to-date construction and they must do all that can be done to reduce the terrible burden--and it is a terrible burden--of noise that permeates the affected part of the town. In fact, the noise is getting worse. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me that no budgetary constraints will apply to those proposals.

I must also mention the worthwhile environmental measures. Those of us affected by the widening were pleased to see that in the original plans that were issued as long ago as 1992, such measures included

"areas of dense planting and mounding or barriers"