| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.39 pm
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle): I believe that the House should consider three matters before rising, all of which are of vital interest to my constituents. Two of those matters are not contentious, merely unaddressed.
First, aircraft noise regulations would give airports statutory authority to fine airlines whose aircraft stray from the official approach and departure flight paths. That
matter is of great interest to many of my constituents. I am sure that the Minister is aware that Manchester airport is a great asset to the area that I am privileged to represent, and is an important employer and wealth provider. However, it causes many of my constituents grave concern, given the disruption that aircraft noise can create.Many people in my constituency support the idea that the Government should give such powers to airports like Manchester. That would be of great help in reducing the detrimental environmental impact that unnecessary aircraft noise can cause. From experience, I know that the previous Government approved of such regulations in principle. That is also true of the present Government, and, although I am not totally certain, I believe that such regulations exist in draft form. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me and confirm that that is so. I cannot believe that such a beneficial and non-contentious measure would be opposed in the House, so I hope that the Government can find time to introduce it.
The second issue that I wish to raise on my constituents' behalf relates to existing regulations and a promise made in a public inquiry that took place as part of the inquiry on the central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road. That section of the road has been built, although the remaining two sections have not, as I shall discuss later. Residents of Chester's Croft live in homes that are classified as mobile homes, although they are permanent, having been in existence for at least 40 years and possibly even longer. The homes have gardens and are raised on bricks, with no wheels in sight.
Chester's Croft is a very pleasant place to live, but it is right next door to the new road. If its residents lived in normal brick-built residential dwellings--permanent homes, as the law would have it--they would have the right to claim compensation for noise generated by the new road running alongside their homes. However, they do not have that right because of the way in which their homes are classified. The Government agree with me that they should have that right, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the other place sent me a letter apologising for the fact that the promised regulations have still not been introduced. The residents have waited for at least six years for such regulations, so, again, I hope that the Government can find time for something that they accept will bring only benefit to my constituents and, I suspect, other hon. Members' constituents as well.
My understanding is that probably since the noble Lord wrote to me to apologise for the delay, the regulations have been and are still being checked by the Department's solicitors. What on earth are they checking? The regulations exist; they simply need to be applied to mobile home owners. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give my constituents some sight of light at the end of a long, dark tunnel as they wait for the promises to be delivered.
As hon. Members can see, there are in my constituency a number of outstanding problems of serious concern to the people who live there. The third matter is the Manchester airport eastern link road, a subject that I have raised so many times in the House that I have almost lost count, but I shall persist until that motorway is completed.
The central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road is in existence. It runs from the A34 south of Cheadle through to the Woodford road between the villages of Bramhall and Woodford. A junction exists between those villages that was never intended to exist.
A large campaign was mounted, and more than 7,000 people in my constituency signed a petition. The petition was left in post offices; it was not taken around and people were not asked or pressurised to sign it while they were out shopping. People who went into their local post office willingly signed it, asking the Government to help to complete the road.
The Manchester airport eastern link road, one would think, should join the airport. It does not. The main route south of the M56 to Manchester airport means that through Finney lane and Heald Green, where the missing western section should be, there is a narrow road through the village of Heald Green. My constituents there cannot get their cars out of their driveways and on to Finney lane during rush hour.
The eastern section should link up to the A6M Hazel Grove bypass. I see that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is in his place. I shall not say too much about what is, strictly speaking, a matter for him as the local Member of Parliament. I know that he shares my view, and that I will not be expressing any view with which he does not agree. The many hon. Members representing the area want the motorway network completed. What have we got in its place? I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove would be willing to tell us, perhaps less politely, outside the Chamber.
We have a study. Wowee! A road network for which my constituents have waited 30 years is again being studied, after umpteen public inquiries into the need for the roads to be completed. That is basically a mechanism for the entire issue to be kicked into touch.
The petition that I mentioned, with more than 7,000 signatures voluntarily given, was presented to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The previous Government gave a starting date for completion of the western section through to the airport and for completion of the eastern section from Woodford road between the villages of Bramhall and Woodford through to the A523. The A6M is a slightly different story in terms of progress on public inquiries and so on.
My constituents suddenly found that when the Government changed, the new Government took away everything that had been promised to them. I do not wish particularly to get angry or annoyed with the Government, although many of my constituents would. I know that I am not the only Member of Parliament and my communities are not the only communities in the country to have suffered similarly from such decisions.
I merely plead with the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of my constituents to ensure that the study is real, even though I would prefer a decision. We just need the road built. Matters get worse and worse. There is to be a second runway at Manchester airport, and traffic, we know, will increase. We have well over an additional 20,000 to 30,000 car movements a day from shopping centres built alongside the existing section. The pressures are enormous.
I wish that the House could have debated and voted on the matter before we rose. If hon. Members came with me--all would be welcome--to Bramhall and Woodford at one end and Heald Green at the other, and, while they were there, went to Hazel Grove, at the invitation of hon. Member for Hazel Grove, they would see that what I am saying is nothing less than the truth, and it is the message that my constituents desperately want to be heard.
1.50 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley): It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) should have spoken about a long, dark tunnel because I want to talk about our railway heritage. I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for being here today to listen to the debate. Unusually for an Adjournment debate, I shall not ask him or his ministerial colleagues to do anything in particular, other than to give moral support to our railway heritage.
First, I should say that I have five £10 shares in the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Company, which is a non-profit-making company, so I do not receive a dividend. I am also president of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society and vice-president of the Keighley bus museum and the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle railway.
I want to say a few words in praise of railway preservers or preservationists--I am not sure what to call them, but not, as they are sometimes described in the media, railway buffs, anoraks, amateurs or people playing at trains. I dislike such terms intensely. I am talking about men and women with the many skills needed to run a railway professionally in accordance with the precise and high requirements of the Health and Safety Executive. They simply want the pleasure of preserving the nation's industrial, transport and, often, architectural heritage, so that we and future generations can understand and appreciate what went before.
The wonderful assistants in the Library have provided me with a list of UK heritage railways. It starts with the Alford valley railway, the Amberley museum and the Appleby Frodingham Railway Preservation Society, and finishes with the Wensleydale Railway Association, West Clare railway, West Lancashire light railway and West Somerset railway. I do not know a great deal about those railways, but there are approximately 100 railway preservation societies, all staffed by men and women who are dedicated to the preservation of railways, locomotives and carriages.
The preservation society that I know best is the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society so I shall dwell on that, not to the exclusion of all else but, because what has happened during the more than 30 years of that society's history is typical of how railway preservation in Britain has progressed. My late husband, Bob Cryer, started the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society in 1961 as a result of the Beeching closure of the line from Keighley to Oxenhope. He called a meeting which was attended by more than 100 local people. The original idea was that the line should be preserved as a public service, but that was found to be too difficult so the preservation society was established, and still exists.
At that time, only one other railway was operated by volunteers, and that was the Bluebell railway in Sussex. The Keighley and Worth Valley railway was the second
in the country to take on the responsibility of running a railway. I think it is fair to say that the Bluebell railway made the mistake of appointing a "fat controller" or "Sir Topham Hat" to run the railway, and arguments developed between him and the volunteer force. Volunteers like to be treated as what they are--talented, skilled, capable people. I am afraid that what happened with the Bluebell railway did not suggest that that was appreciated, and, subsequently, things started to fall apart fairly quickly. However, the railway changed its schemes later, and I believe that Sir Topham Hat--he was not really called that, of course--was disposed of.In the Worth Valley railway society, we learned from that mistake. My husband recognised that the railway needed to be run more like a local authority, or a co-operative. Accordingly, a number of committees were formed to run the various departments. The committees have representatives on the railway's central council, and it operates in the same way to this day. It is a highly democratic organisation: those who do the work make the decisions. I do not think there can be any better demonstration of democracy than that.
Things have changed during the railway's history. As I said, we took it over in 1961, but I think that about four years passed before we had the right to run trains over the Worth valley metals. The Worth Valley railway society purchased the line from British Railways on the basis of a sort of hire-purchase agreement, and it opened to traffic in 1967. For the first few years it ran trains only occasionally, but the traffic gradually increased. Currently, we run trains throughout July and August, during bank holiday weeks and at Christmas, and we run plenty of special trains. For instance, in a couple of weeks we shall have a "Thomas the Tank Engine" special day or two. Such events attract many people to the railways.
We need support, but those who give their time and talents to running the railway can do so only if they too are supported by people who pay fares to go on it.
The Government have supported us indirectly, through the heritage lottery fund. The fund has just given the railway money to build sheds at Oxenhope to house the many locomotives and carriages that we now own. It is not only a rare but a large collection, and it needs to be protected from the severe weather that we have in the Worth valley. We hope that the sheds will eventually be erected at Oxenhope; I thank the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for helping us with advice on applying for lottery support.
We also need places to put our engines and carriages during the railway's redevelopment at Oxenhope. They are very old and will need protection. We expect them to be moved to aircraft hangars and other sites across the country.
I hope that what I have said will encourage hon. Members and those outside the House to visit, support and possibly even join railway preservation societies. They can be assured of a warm welcome on the Worth Valley railway and, I am sure, many others.
I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for listening, and, as I say, I hope that my speech will encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to visit and become involved with their local railway preservation societies, wherever they are.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |