| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.17 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East): I, too, can be brief. The Minister may be relieved to hear that I have not brought a megaphone with me, in the light of our exchange yesterday during Foreign Office questions and his characteristically generous telephone call to my office this morning.
As has already been pointed out, the Bill is entirely sensible. It will enable the United Kingdom to do as much for Hong Kong as Canada and Australia have already done, and should clearly pass through the House with neither let nor hindrance. I am particularly encouraged by the fact that the Bill is being introduced with the agreement of the Government of the People's Republic of China. Such agreement may well be the basis on which we can effectively argue for a closer coming together of opinion on some more fundamental issues, several of which I have no doubt will be touched on in the debate on 14 November.
I add my good wishes and congratulations to those already expressed to Sir David Ford, who has been a most assiduous representative of Hong Kong in this country. He has taken every opportunity in the least officious way to promote the case of Hong Kong and ensure that right hon. and hon. Members have been well aware of the issues at any particular time. He has been especially effective in ensuring that a ready stream of individuals from Hong Kong, especially members of LegCo, have visited the United Kingdom to talk face to face with hon. Members. The debate on 14 November should not be foreshadowed by this debate, because we are concerned today with essentially a technical measure.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson):
I take the surprising liberty of coming to the Dispatch Box--having not expected to do so--because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has kindly given me the opportunity to wrap up this short debate. I do so with great pleasure, because I have taken a close interest in trade relations between Hong Kong and the UK.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for their remarks, and I particularly note what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about free speech as well as free trade. I am sure that their courteous and responsible remarks today will have
31 Oct 1996 : Column 800
This non-political Bill is a practical measure with limited expenditure implications. The people of Hong Kong will be heartened by the reservoir of good will in this House towards Hong Kong, and I hope that they will see the Bill as evidence of the Government's determination to do what we can to ensure that Hong Kong continues to enjoy full autonomy in the conduct of its economic and commercial affairs. I am sure that many hon. Members will continue to have dealings with Hong Kong in the London office long after 1997 in trade and commercial matters, and that the office will continue to perform its functions as effectively as it does now.
I very much appreciate the personal commendations that have been rendered on this occasion, and I am sure that the office will continue to play its role fully and effectively. The office will promote trade and investment between the UK and Hong Kong, which will help to secure the future of Hong Kong as a special administrative region, not just politically but commercially. For reasons of prosperity and good commerce at a time of transition--as well as for constitutional reasons--I very much welcome all the expressions of support that have been made today.
I have great pleasure in supporting my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose personal work in this area has been outstanding. He has taken his visits to Hong Kong seriously, and I take great pleasure in adding my commendation to the Bill.
Dr. Marek:
I wish to question the Minister of State on one aspect of the Bill. Will any of the rights to be granted to the Hong Kong office on 1 July 1997 be in any way weaker than those granted to the offices of the provinces of Canada or the constituent parts of the Commonwealth of Australia? I hope that that is not the case, but if it is, I should like to know where and why the privileges will be different from those currently offered to all the other offices that will be in a similar situation after 1 July. This is a pure point of information, and I wonder whether the Minister has the answer to hand.
Mr. Hanley:
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the question of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who takes an assiduous interest in Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong Government office in London already receives partial exemption from rates and exemption from income tax for its staff. These are provided on an extra-statutory basis. The additional privileges and immunities in the Bill are for the running of the office, and include exemption from duties and taxes for the staff on the importation of certain effects and a motor vehicle, and on official vehicles for the office. The number of staff at the Hong Kong Government office will fall slightly.
The revenue forgone--this is not quite what the hon. Gentleman asked, but it may help the House if I say it--as a result of granting a limited range of privileges and immunities to the office and its staff should be well below £1 million. That is quoted in the explanatory memorandum.
31 Oct 1996 : Column 801
As for the differences between the Hong Kong office and any other office, I should explain that Hong Kong's position is unique. It is incumbent on Her Majesty's Government, as a co-signatory to the Sino-British joint declaration, to help Hong Kong to maintain its autonomy and international standing in trade matters. It would seem bizarre, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, if the United Kingdom did not help Hong Kong on this issue when other countries such as Australia, Canada and Singapore have planned or have granted a similar range of privileges and immunities to Hong Kong.
As for the differences with other countries, I think that it is true that the privileges that we are granting here are extra to the privileges and immunities granted to other offices. I shall certainly list them for the hon. Member for Wrexham. I shall send him a letter and publish the list of privileges and immunities granted to others, although it is true to say that most other similar offices have fewer privileges and immunities than are listed in the Bill. I do not have the detailed list with me, but I shall willingly answer the hon. Gentleman's question. It would be helpful to the House if I put the list in the Libraries of both Houses.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.--[Mrs. Lait.]
Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to the Resolution of the House [25 October].
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50(1)(a),
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mrs. Lait.]
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle):
I wish to raise a matter of considerable importance and interest in my constituency and I am grateful for the opportunity for this Adjournment debate to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads visited my constituency and saw some of the problems that I wish to mention, so he is aware of the difficulties facing my constituents because the Manchester airport eastern link road--the MAELR--has not been completed.
The central section of the road, from the new A34 bypass--running north-south through my constituency--runs from the A34(M) in the west to Woodford road in Bramhall. My hon. Friend visited Woodford road in Bramhall to see the junction that has been located where none was originally envisaged. That junction has created terrific traffic problems in the villages of Woodford and Bramhall.
While the central section is welcome in itself, it can be properly welcomed only when the whole road has been completed: the central section alone has perhaps created more problems than it has solved. The central section was built with the aid of some private finance, which meant that it was finished well ahead of the other two sections in the west and east.
At the time of the public inquiry into the central section of MAELR, it was estimated that there would be an extra 15,000 to 20,000 daily car movements owing to the two out-of-town shopping developments. Those two developments contributed financially to the building of the central section. There is no doubt that those stores are a great success, but their commercial success has produced massive traffic problems. I shall give evidence to show that the increase in traffic has gone way beyond that anticipated at the time of the public inquiry.
My constituents and I are also annoyed that the constituency has had to wait 30 years for the road. The line has been laid down in some form or other for that long, but there is still not a complete bypass around the area that I am privileged to represent. There is merely a third of a bypass, which benefits the shopping cities, but does little to alleviate the constituency's traffic congestion. Indeed, the congestion will be worse until the Government build the rest of the MAELR.
The eastern section of the MAELR runs from Woodford road in Bramhall, through to the A523 Poynton road and will hopefully eventually link up to the proposed A6(M) Hazel Grove bypass. Congestion in Bramhall village, Woodford road and Chester road in Woodford and in Poynton--in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)--has become intolerable. I shall give evidence of the scale of public concern within those areas and I am sure that my hon. Friend will too.
There is a lot of annoyance in the villages of Woodford and Bramhall at the increased traffic congestion, with heavy goods vehicles and cars coming on to the end of the MAELR, not only to reach the new shopping cities, but to reach the M63 by way of the MAELR and the A34(M). Of course, no junction was ever intended at the
31 Oct 1996 : Column 803
When my hon. Friend the Minister visited Woodford road and saw the junction to which I referred, he met representatives of Bramhall and Woodford community councils. They expressed residents' views, but--being community council representatives--they were perhaps more polite than residents would have been if my hon. Friend and I had walked along Woodford road and knocked on their doors.
The western section of the MAELR will require building from the A34(M) through to the M56--what could be called the airport link. Traffic that would have bypassed Heald Green had the original scheme gone through in its entirety now comes off the central section of the MAELR and, if travelling west, comes on to the old A34 and goes straight on to Finney lane, which is the east-west route to the airport, through the village of Heald Green.
Again, the central section has brought no relief to my constituents, but merely more traffic--traffic that is of no benefit to the area I represent. The central section has increased traffic congestion significantly. Stockport metropolitan borough council monitored traffic and found that there had been a 30 per cent. increase in daily traffic along Finney lane, which is the only available western route at the western end of the central section for traffic going to the airport. Knowing how important Manchester airport is, my hon. Friend the Minister will realise the scale of that traffic.
Many developments have been proposed for the area: some are in the pipeline--approved but not yet built--and others are at some stage of the planning process. Their impact should not be underestimated and lend significant weight to the case for an early completion of both the western and the eastern sections of the Manchester airport eastern link road.
At Cheadle Royal hospital, which is adjacent to the old A34 and the shopping city at Cheadle Royal in what was Bruntford park, extra housing and commercial properties are at various stages of planning or build. They can only increase the traffic pressure on the old A34 and, indeed, the central section and surrounding roads.
At Hanforth Dean, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), there is a large shopping development--one of the those that contributed toward meeting the cost of the central section of the MAELR. Construction on that development will continue--some with planning permission, some without--to enlarge the leisure and retail complex that is already there and generating the extra 15,000 to 20,000 car movements a day.
A little further north up the A34 we have a proposal for a multiplex cinema which, if built, will be the biggest in the country. I hasten to add that, although they are not my hon. Friend the Minister's concern, I opposed all those developments--for reasons that are obvious, given the traffic congestion that we already suffer--and some of them will be subject to public inquiries.
There is also a proposal for a plastics factory to be built next to the multiplex cinema--all that on the Sharston-Gatley boundary, which is also the boundary between the city of Manchester and the borough of
31 Oct 1996 : Column 804
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take into account the possibility that Manchester will get a second runway. The matter is before the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment, who will make the final decision. The increased traffic would be intolerable if the proposal went ahead, in addition to all the developments that I have mentioned and the extra traffic that has been generated, over and above that expected by the public inquiry. It would be inexcusable if approval were given for a second runway without the MAELR being completed all the way through from the M56 to the A6(M).
There has just been a public inquiry into a proposal for opencast mining at Poynton, which would affect my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. God forbid that that development should go ahead, but if it does, extra traffic pressures--very heavy traffic--will result.
The completed MAELR scheme from the M56 to the A6(M) was designed to cope with traffic levels anticipated in conjunction with a single runway at Manchester. A second runway would demand not only the completion of MAELR, but substantial upgrading to cope with yet more traffic.
The Commonwealth games are to be held in Manchester in 2002. Part of the grand south Manchester bypass system is, however, nothing more than a joke and a grand driveway to Sainsbury's car park at Cheadle Royal. That is the best way to describe it and the only function that it fulfils--apart from creating massive problems for my constituents.
The need to complete the road is recognised by other hon. Members. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield wishes to contribute to the debate. Other hon. Members have given their permission for me to cite their support for my argument. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) writes:
I shall show my hon. Friend the Minister my file of constituents' letters on MAELR. I have been inundated with letters, and rightly so--that is my job. I want to pass on not only my constituents' concerns, but their anger at being left with one third of a road that is of no use to anyone and is causing more problems than we had before. We desperately need the road to be completed. If, at the end of the debate I have impressed on my hon. Friend the Minister the importance of the road to the area, I shall be well satisfied.
I shall read the most recent letter that I received. A few letters arrived today, as people in my constituency heard about the debate. A resident of Woodford road writes:
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will repeat what he told me when he visited Bramhall and that he will give an assurance that when the eastern section of the MAELR is completed--sooner rather than later, I hope--the junction at Woodford road will be closed and returned to its original planned status as a proper bypass for Bramhall and Woodford.
I have a letter from councillor Kenneth Holt, who represents the Bramhall East ward on Stockport metropolitan borough council. He states:
Councillor Peter Burns, an independent councillor representing the Heald Green ratepayers association, also sent me a letter of support. He says:
31 Oct 1996 : Column 806
Woodford community council has sent a brief letter of support for the completion of the road scheme. Its chairman, Bryan Leck, says:
The chairman of Bramhall community council wrote:
My constituent continued:
I want to show the Minister a petition signed by more than 6,000 people, all of whom are my constituents. The names were collected over the summer months, during the recess. More forms are still to be collected from other petition points. I hope that when we reach the target figure of 10,000--which I expect to happen shortly--he will accede to my request and ask the Secretary of State to receive this petition, because it is addressed to him. It expresses the concern of 6,000 of my constituents in Cheadle. As I said, my hon. Friend can expect more names before we are done.
The road is vital to the well-being of my constituency. Support for the scheme is overwhelming. I look round the country and see demonstrations against bypasses here, there and everywhere. The Department has had great
31 Oct 1996 : Column 808
We need an early starting date. We lost the original starting date. We were told at the public inquiry that there would be a four-year gap between the building of the central section and the building of the western and eastern sections. I am now told by the Highways Agency that we could be looking at 2006. That is not acceptable, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield agrees. My constituents are furious, and I do not blame them--I share their anger. Something must be done to fulfil the promises made at the public inquiry.
4.24 pm
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of refunds paid by virtue of the Act.--[Mrs. Lait.]
Question accordingly agreed to.
That Mr. Roy Thomason be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr. Walter Sweeney be added to the Committee.--[Mrs. Lait.]
4.29 pm
"This long-standing scheme which will bring benefits to airport users and all the residents of Stockport has my total backing."
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) states:
"I believe that this scheme will bring major benefits to our area and allow the full benefits for the A34 by-pass to be realised. I think it will also ease a lot of congestion on the roads which will be of benefit to local residents. I realise that there is enormous support for this scheme in your constituency"--
that is, Cheadle--
"and I would also like to give you my full support."
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) wanted very much to contribute briefly to the debate and, as his constituency neighbour, I should have been glad to allow him to do so, but because of a family bereavement, he cannot be present. He has asked me to read on to the record his support for my case. He states:
"This long-standing scheme will bring major benefits to South Manchester/North Cheshire and allow the full benefits of the A34 by-pass to be realised. In particular, it will improve access to the
31 Oct 1996 : Column 805Airport from the south and east and remove traffic from congested roads through residential areas. This will benefit passengers and staff as well as local residents.
amen to that--
While the full benefits of the MAELR will require the completion of the A6 Stockport by-pass"--
"even without this there will be significant local benefits.
that is, the airport--
I understand the Airport Company fully support the completion of the remaining sections and that its planning has been designed so as to be compatible with MAELR. It"--
"would be prepared to fully co-operate in any initiatives to progress MAELR."
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to mention also that residents of his constituency have expressed concern about the impact of the second runway construction traffic coming from the Peak district in the absence of MAELR.
"The traffic situation is quite unbearable on Woodford Road from early in the morning to late at night. In the rush hours the traffic is solid and frequently at a standstill.
That is the living reality for people on Woodford road, where no junction was ever intended.
The volume and speed of the traffic at other times is such that access onto Woodford Road involves a long wait and a frantic dash on most occasions.
Lots of heavy vehicles use the new bypass as a better access to the M63 than other routes, and will drive from Hazel Grove, Disley etc. at all hours of the day or night to gain access to it."
"The partial completion of MAELR has increased traffic flows in and around Bramhall throughout the day to levels only previously experienced in the rush hour with journeys to and from local industry. The huge volumes of through traffic are making local traffic manoeuvres particularly difficult, and of course significantly increasing the hazards to local schoolchildren and all other pedestrians."
I can vouch for that. Crossing the road in Bramhall village is a nightmare, and it is a brave person who dares to cross Woodford road.
"I write on behalf of the Heald Green community of some 15,000 residents ... For many years the community of Heald Green has been seriously damaged by the amount of East-West traffic along Finney Lane, the main road through the village. This road provides the only decent bridge for East-West traffic over the North-South railway and, therefore, is the route for traffic to and from the East and South-East, bound for the motorway network and Manchester Airport . . .
that is, Stockport metropolitan council--
Recent traffic counts by my Council"--
"have shown 30 per cent. increase in the daily traffic flow along Finney Lane. This has been achieved not by increasing the already saturated number of vehicles per hour but by extending the number of hours of this saturation.
I do not disagree with Councillor Burns.
The only way to relieve the ever-worsening ill health, danger and environmental damage being caused, is by the construction of the western section of the MAELR Route."
"As Chairman of the Woodford Community Council my members would strongly support your campaign to ensure that the extension from the Woodford Road roundabout in an easterly direction be expedited.
the eastern section of the road.
The completion of the central section has caused horrendous problems in the Bramhall and Woodford area which can only be alleviated by the construction of"
"The leisure centres on the A34 sharing the Cheadle Royal Hospital site"--
to which I referred earlier--
"opposite the J. Sainsburys-John Lewis shopping complex have been opened recently. They will attract more traffic."
He wrote that he was grateful that the Secretary of State for the Environment had called in some of those applications, and continued:
"Now the enquiry into the application for opencast coalmining on Towers Farm, Poynton, near to the Hazel Grove 5 ways road junction, has just been completed."
He says that the short distances between those local developments emphasise the potential for increased traffic congestion in Bramhall. He then wrote:
"Therefore you can well understand why an Action Committee has been set up to urge the completion of the east and west sections of MAELR as soon as possible.
I have a letter from one of the founders of the MAELR and Poynton bypass campaign--a constituent of mine who lives on Chester road in Woodford--which said:
The residents of Hazel Grove, Poynton, Woodford and Bramhall held a public meeting in Poynton on October 7 1996 to appoint a committee which met a week later."
"I write to express my growing concern about the increasing levels of traffic using unsuitable roads through Woodford, Bramhall and Poynton which have resulted from the partial completion of MAELR . . . I am particularly concerned that the daily traffic levels are already well in excess of the projected level of 18,000 for the year 2009, a figure which was submitted to the Public Inquiry in 1992. Almost 20,000 vehicles per day were measured by Cheshire County Council along Woodford Road south of the MAELR's 'temporary' termination point in May this year, barely six months after the central section of MAELR was opened.
31 Oct 1996 : Column 807
The resultant increase in traffic is causing considerable congestion and delay for road users as well as excessive noise and pollution for residents, pedestrians and cyclists along the existing roads. More worrying is the large increase in traffic resulting from heavy lorries, over 10 per cent. of the traffic or 2000 vehicles per day is now in this category, and this extends from early morning and late into the evening. The result is considerable additional noise, vibration and pollution, a particular concern when there is a weight of evidence confirming the effect on health of particulates arising from diesel vehicles. Large vehicles on the narrow roads also pose considerable dangers for cyclists and for those using the pavement or attempting to cross the road.
Stepping aside from my constituent's letter for a moment, I can tell the Minister that at the time of the public inquiry I was one of those who warned of the dangers that would result if construction of the central section went ahead. I hate to say, "I told you so," because I wish that I had been proved wrong. I am afraid that the residents' warnings about the dangers of building only the central section have proved to be correct.
There is considerable support for the completion of this scheme, from residents and businesses throughout Bramhall, Woodford and Poynton, but growing anger that the scheme could have been allowed to proceed in part only with a totally unsatisfactory 'temporary' termination on Woodford Road--in spite of the weight of objections presented at the public inquiry."
"The decision to proceed with MAELR on a partial basis has, in the short period since its completion in November 1995, proved to be totally unsatisfactory, causing severe congestion and all the attendant noise ... I would therefore wish the scheme to be progressed to completion without further delay to enable the people of Woodford, Bramhall and Poynton to be relieved of the distress caused by the wholly unacceptable and growing levels of traffic on our roads which have resulted."
The last letter of support is from Manchester Airport, and I am pleased to have received it. It says that the MAELR
"Will bring major benefits to South Manchester and North Cheshire and allow the full benefits of the recently completed A34 by-pass to be realised. It will also improve access to the Airport ... remove through traffic from congested roads through residential areas. Obviously, the full benefits of the completed MAELR scheme will also require the completion of the A6 ... by-pass".
That bypass is not the subject of the debate, but it is on the minds of my constituents and many others in the area. The letter continues:
"The Airport Company fully support the completion of the remaining sections and we have joined forces with the Local Authorities to try and progress the road. Thus we would be more than happy to fully co-operate in any initiatives which come forward to progress MAELR particularly once the uncertainty about our own future growth prospects have been resolved."
Will the Minister please talk to the people who have commercial or potential commercial interests in the area, and let us get the road completed at the earliest possible opportunity?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |