| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Mar 2003 : Column 555—continued
PETITIONS
Community Pharmacists
7.10 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): I have strongly supported the proposals that community pharmacists should be more closely involved in our primary health care. However, a few weeks ago a report from the Office of Fair Trading was presented to the Department of Trade and Industry which has created tensions within that policy and anxieties throughout the country, including in my constituency. So I want to present a petition, signed by 3,225 constituents of Bolton, South-East.
- That proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions would undermine the excellent service currently provided by community pharmacies.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject the Office of Fair Trading's proposal to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Police
7.11 pm
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): My petition relates to the acute underfunding of policing in Surrey and the resulting pressures on both the availability of policing in the community that I represent and the ability of the force to retain some of its best and most experienced officers. The petition is from some 3,000 residents of the Epson and Ewell area.
- That they wish to express their very great concern about the difficulties faced by their local police force, and are concerned that these difficulties will make it more difficult for their local officers to deal with rising crime and antisocial behaviour. They call on the Government to tackle the pay inequalities between officers in London and Surrey, and to ensure an end to under-funding of police in Surrey.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons request to the appropriate Minister to take urgent action to address these issues.
And the petitioners remain, et cetera.
M6
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
7.12 pm
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): I am glad to have the opportunity to quiz the Under-Secretary on the Government's plans to widen the M6 motorway. I am also pleased that he is on the Front Bench, because he is always most helpful.
People in Stafford often talk about traffic conditions on the M6. It rivals the weather as a topic of conversation, but it has to be said that the weather is more variable. As we wake up each morning, the television and radio news is always the same: that traffic on the M6 southbound is stationary between junctions 8 and 10. The Secretary of State made a statement to the House in December last year outlining his intention to widen the M6. If you were stuck in a traffic jam on the M6 just north of Birmingham, Madam Deputy Speaker—and bearing in mind your constituency, you probably have been—you would be delighted to hear on your car radio that the Government were at last going to solve the problem. But their plans do not touch junctions 8 to 10. They start at junction 11 and go northwards to junction 20. Have the Government got their priorities right in solving the problem of congestion on the M6?
In fairness, the Government have plans to tackle problems on the M6 nearer to Birmingham. Next year a toll motorway will open and a pilot scheme will start on active traffic management. The toll motorway—what was the Birmingham northern relief road, now renamed the M6 toll—is Britain's first private toll motorway. It leaves the M6 north of Birmingham, travels over the top of the city and joins the M42 to the south-east. As the Secretary of State said in a recent speech, when that motorway opens, we will be able to gain active and genuine experience of whether motorists are willing to pay tolls to avoid traffic jams. We will see whether there is consumer acceptance or consumer opposition.
The active traffic management scheme involves much more use of overhead gantries and the provision of information to try directly to manage the flow of the traffic, as regards the speeds and lanes to use, and so on, and more controversially, at times of peak traffic to use the hard shoulder as a running lane. I know that the RAC has concerns about the use of hard shoulders for the driving of cars, because of worries about the impact on safety. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on the Government's intentions for more general use of hard shoulders to enable traffic to move along the motorway.
In Birmingham, the ultimate plan is to introduce ATM for the whole of the west midlands motorway box—that is, the whole network of motorways around Birmingham. I can see that that might help, but first the Government have a plan for a pilot scheme on part of the M42. Because the problem of congestion is so severe just north of Birmingham on the M6 motorway, I hope the Government will show some urgency in developing ATM if it is a possible solution.
Staffordshire is divided on the question of widening the M6 through Staffordshire. Some say that economic development is being held back in the county because of
the well known problem of traffic hold-ups on the M6. People cannot easily travel to and from work, the delivery of goods to businesses is held up, and inward investors thinking of developing north of Birmingham are put off by the stories about traffic hold-ups. For this group of people, the widening is essential and urgent.Others, however, say that motor vehicles are pollutants and that we should seek to provide alternative transport forms so that we rely less on them. They say that a wider M6 motorway will just attract more vehicles and still be full. In consequence, the residents of Staffordshire will suffer more noise, fumes and vibration if the widening goes ahead. As regards the strength of those two views, last autumn I held a series of public meetings, which I called my M6 roadshow, to try to explain to members of the public what might happen if the motorway is widened. I found that those two views were broadly evenly balanced, one against the other.
I should add that there is a different and distinctive argument from a group of people supported by some parish councils in Staffordshire and in Cheshire, which is also affected. They say that instead of widening the M6, we should build a new strategic road between Manchester and the midlands. The Government set up a multi-modal study for the transport corridor involving the M6 from the west midlands to Manchester, so the study was given the name MidMan. It is interesting that that plan for a new strategic road came out with the best cost-benefit analysis of all the options considered, but it was decisively rejected on environmental grounds.
I want Staffordshire businesses to be successful, but I do not believe that a heavy reliance on widening the M6 motorway is the right way to help them. It also comes at too high a cost for Staffordshire's residents—residents like those people who live in streets next to the motorway in Stafford, such as Devon way and Southfields road, places that I know well. To those who ask why we were foolish enough to build houses next to a motorway, I would say that the houses were there first, and ask who was stupid enough to allow a motorway to be constructed at the bottom of people's gardens. For those people, opening a window in summer is not sensible. Going into the garden on a lovely summer's evening is not tolerable. Growing vegetables to eat is definitely not something that they would do.
The effects of the motorway spread across the whole of Stafford, which has a population of 50,000. They are felt in villages such as Penkridge, which has a population of 10,000. Everyone worries about the noise, fumes and vibration from the existing motorway, let alone a wider one.
What about the economic costs of widening the M6? The Conservative Government of the early 1990s also announced their intention to widen the M6 between junctions 11 and 20. They got as far as producing plans, holding public exhibitions locally and acquiring land, but then they abandoned the scheme on cost grounds.
MidMan estimated that the cost of widening the M6 from junctions 11 to 20, from three lanes each way to four lanes each way, would be about £700 million. The study also recommended that additional money should be spent on other transport measures, such as improved
rail services, more rail freight, better bus use and park-and-ride facilities. Even in the short time since MidMan published its study, however, the estimated cost of the M6 widening has risen to more than £900 million. Will the other necessary schemes recommended by MidMan be cut and will much needed environmental protection measures be left out of the M6 widening scheme as the costs escalate?The time scale for the widening scheme is about 10 years. People sitting in traffic jams, listening to the Government's plan to widen the motorway to solve their problem, learn that they must wait 10 years for it to come into effect. Other transport measures recommended by MidMan could be carried out much more quickly.
To sum up my concerns about the principle of widening the M6: are the Government sure that a big, lengthy project, costing a lot of public money, is the best solution to the problem of so many vehicles filling the M6? Would it not be more effective to implement a more modest scheme, which included the provision of climbing lanes at specified locations, junction capacity improvements and ATM, allied to a balanced package of schemes involving road and rail and public and private investment? However, I support MidMan's conclusion that doing nothing is not an option. Already, more than 100,000 vehicles a day pass through Staffordshire on the M6 and further growth is forecast. The existing motorway cannot cope with that amount of traffic indefinitely.
The MidMan public consultation was inadequate, not through lack of willingness to consult but through lack of time. The study took longer to complete than was envisaged and the final report was needed in time for the regional planning guidance inquiry. The Minister should not place too much reliance on the MidMan study alone.
I attended the regional planning inquiry to put the case of my constituents, and I was interested in the report of the regional planning inspectors. They declined to endorse the conclusion of the MidMan report to widen the M6. They left the decision to the Secretary of State, as it involved national strategic considerations rather than regional considerations.
Before I turn to the practical consequences of widening the motorway, I praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for the way in which they have given effect to the Secretary of State's decision so far. I was in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend made his announcement about widening the M6. He said that he would discuss with Members any concerns that they wanted to express. I wrote to him quickly to ask if I could bring a delegation to visit a Minister. His response was equally prompt and I was able to take a delegation from Stafford to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. On that day in February, the Under-Secretary and representatives of the Highways Agency met representatives of the three tiers of local government in Staffordshire—the county, the borough and the parishes—and me.
The councils pressed for a good working relationship between them and the Highways Agency as they worked up the plans for Ministers' consideration. I understand that that will take place in July. Will my hon. Friend tell
us whether a practical working relationship has been established between the Highways Agency and the councils?I am worried about letters that residents receive from private claims negotiators who offer to negotiate on their behalf to get compensation if the widening goes ahead. Does my hon. Friend agree that people should keep their freedom to decide what to do for themselves? Does he further agree that they should be able to approach the Highways Agency if they have any queries?
Some of the M6 road surface in Staffordshire is still concrete. The Government have a scheme to replace that noisy surface on trunk roads. Will the M6 be excluded from the scheme because of its status of awaiting widening? Will not that delay relief from noise for many thousands of people in Staffordshire? Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the widening goes ahead, the best noise-reducing surface will be laid as part of the construction contract?
Good quality landscaping along the motorway can mitigate the noise, fumes and vibration. Bunding—giant earth mounds—can block and divert some ill effects. Appropriate planting can absorb harmful fumes. To what extent can my hon. Friend assure me and residents of Staffordshire and Cheshire that every effort will be made to provide such high quality protection?
When houses are up against the boundary of the existing M6, parallel widening leaves a space for landscaping between the relocated motorway and the houses. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that method of widening the M6 will be adopted when appropriate?
Some environmental groups are worried about parallel widening. They fear that it will leave the way open to extending the motorway further to a 10-lane M6. Will my hon. Friend confirm on the record that a 10-lane M6 is out of the question?
My anxieties neatly split into two. First, is widening the M6 necessary in the form that the Government propose? Secondly, is it good value for money? If so, will the residents who are most affected have all the environmental protection that can reasonably be designed and implemented?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |