The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown):

I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to the need for rapid progress with the proposed improvement to the A449 trunk road at Lloyd Hill.

We have of course been aware for many years of the mounting congestion on this stretch of the busy trunk road between Wolverhampton and Kidderminster. As the hon. Member has mentioned, a very heavy degree of overloading was established back in 1966. But the road is by no means unique in this respect and for a long while a start on the processes leading to the desired improvement had to defer to the even more pressing claim of other schemes for trunk road improvement and construction.

The turning point came in February 1967, when we were able to announce the inclusion of the scheme for the provision of dual carriageways in the preparation pool, with a view to its inclusion in the firm programme of trunk road schemes for the early 1970s.

A great deal of work is involved in preparing a scheme in sufficient detail for its cost to be accurately assessed and set against the expected benefits, for the purpose of reaching an informed decision on its appropriate place in the firm programme. However, partly because much thought had already been devoted to this particular improvement by our agent authority, the county council, we were enabled to complete this stage in good time, and the continued increase in congestion led us to conclude that the scheme should be programmed for the earliest possible year, which then appeared to be 1969–70.

As the hon. Member is aware we have not found it possible to maintain the promise of that decision, and he can take my assurance that it gives me no pleasure to have to say that we cannot keep the promise of a starting date for a road scheme because, if we cannot keep the promise to start, the completion of the scheme must accordingly be delayed. It had in any event been our expectation that a start could not be made until towards the end of the financial year, during the early part of 1970. But despite our best efforts, we realised in July that it would not be possible to complete all the necessary steps in terms of detailed design, statutory procedures and land acquisition sufficiently quickly.

This scheme did not require an order under section 7 of the Highways Act 1959, establishing a new trunk road, since the improvement was to follow the line of the existing road. So in this way we could save some time; but an order under Section 9 of the Act was needed to authorise the necessary side road alteration. This was published in draft in January 1969. The statutory objection period was three months and during this period two objections were received. It was possible in due course to secure their withdrawal but the order could not in the event be duly made until September.

A start had already been made on the necessary negotiations for the acquisition of the land required for the scheme, and on the preparation of a draft compulsory purchase order. This draft order has not yet been published and is at present being held up while certain drainage difficulties which might require the inclusion of some additional land are being ironed out; this is an example of the way in which problems of detail which cannot be foreseen at the more general preliminary planning stages may impose restraint on the achievement of target dates. This is what has happened in this case. We hope to settle this point soon, but the indications we have already received are that objections to the compulsory purchase order are likely to be made and that a public inquiry may well be necessary. These are things over which my Department and the county council have no control.

The hon. Member will appreciate that, whatever may be the urgency of the improvement scheme, those whose land is required for its execution have statutory rights of objection; and if they decide to exercise these rights, their objections will have to be carefully considered, together with the report of the inspector if an inquiry is held, by my right hon. Friend before he reaches his decision. It is right and proper that people who exercise their statutory rights should be given full consideration.

While we shall certainly press on with all speed to the publication of the draft order, it is not possible at this stage to indicate with any precision when or in what form the decision on it will be made, since that depends to a large extent on the volume and the force of any objections which may be received.

There is also the question of the re-housing of certain people who would be displaced from their present homes by the scheme. With the best will in the world it takes time for them to make the arrangements, especially where it may be necessary for new accommodation to be built in place of that which would need to be demolished if the scheme is to go ahead as planned. I understand there is one case where an application for outline planning permission to rebuild a house has just been submitted. Therefore I hope the hon. Member will understand our difficulties. It is fair and reasonable that people who are being displaced should be given sufficient time to find themselves alternative accommodation, even if it means building a new house.