OVER the past few weeks, I like most readers of the local press have been following the debate, which has been raging about the future of the proposed M6 link road. Of particular interest to me has been the political manoeuvrings of my colleague Hilton Dawson, whose position on this issue shifts with alarming regularity. The current (or should I say last week's) version appears to be in three parts as follows.

1.That Lancashire County Council should abandon the bid for the Western Bypass that is presently their number one traffic scheme priority.

2. That a bid for an unspecified range of traffic improvement measures of indeterminate costs should be prepared over an undefined period of time.

3. That although he would personally prefer a solution that did not involve any major road building he would however accept the inclusion of a Northern bypass in the bid if it could be proved that it was practical and necessary to do so.

I firmly believe that if Lancashire County Council were to follow his advice it would have disastrous consequences for the economy of the Lancaster district. In my opinion it is absolutely essential that the County Council Highways Authority retain the Heysham Port-M6 link as their top priority.

Whilst I fully accept that Government Office North West have a number of strong reservations about the Western link road, Hilton's inference that this means that the scheme has been killed of is a complete fabrication. This is made quite clear in a letter I have recently received from a Senior Government North West Planning Officer who also states that it is recognised by Government North West that a road-based solution is almost certain to be part of a package of measures to deal with the congestion in the Lancaster District. It would therefore be preposterous to now say to the Government we are not sure whether we agree with you that we really need a link road after all. In my opinion the completion of the M6 link at the earliest possible date is the single most important action that can be taken to both reduce traffic congestion and economically regenerate the area. Additional measures such as improved public transport and traffic management schemes whilst important in themselves are not viable alternatives to a road link but are simply complementary to it.

The vastly superior economic opportunities and greater traffic reduction capabilities offered by the Western route are the core reasons why I prefer it to the alternative Northern route. Of particular importance is the access to the Luneside Employment Area on which much of the City Councils regeneration bid is centred. It is inconceivable that this site can be successfully redeveloped without the sort of outlet that would be provided by the western link.

It is therefore imperative that a settlement be found that overcomes the Government's objections to the current western scheme whilst still maintaining its regeneration and traffic reduction capabilities. Such a compromise may be forthcoming following closer examination of a suggestion I made sometime ago i.e. to provide a bridge and a link to the Luneside Employment Area in combination with a northern bypass.

I believe that this may well provide an acceptable alternative that both meets the needs of the area and satisfies the Governments requirements.

Finally, I would like to assure all those who back the scheme that with or without the support of Hilton Dawson, my colleagues on the County and City Councils and I will continue to fight to get the Heysham Port-M6 link road built at the earliest possible date.

Geraldine Smith

Member of Parliament

Morecambe