HC Deb 21 December 1954 vol 535 cc2721-30

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Billericay)

Despite the excitement and uncertainties of the last few moments, the House has spent a constructive and useful day discussing needs and assistance. Tonight I want to fix attention upon the needs of a particular group of my constituents and to implore the Minister's assistance. It was in February, 1953, that Canvey Island, which I have the honour to represent, was swept into the new by the East Coast flood disaster. No other part of the country suffered such grievous loss. The whole island was inundated. AH but a handful of the population were evacuated. The casualty list was long.

At that time Canvey Island had and has today only one link with the mainland, a ramshackle swing bridge which was installed some years ago when the island's population was but a fraction of what it is now. The bridge is a constant source of anxiety to the road engineers responsible for looking after it. It has to be inspected weekly and must now be nearing the end of its useful life. If it had collapsed under the strain of the flood evacuation—and let me say that at the time there were many who were fearful on that score—then the casualty list would have been much heavier as speedy evacuation would have been impossible and the bulk of the casualties were people who suffered from exposure.

The case for a new high level bridge spanning both the railway which runs along the mainland and the narrow waterway which separates Canvey Island from the mainland is unanswerable. I do not propose to go into any detail on the subject, because my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be familiar with the representations that I made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) in the late Labour Government as long ago as July, 1951. Broadly, the case is as follows.

Canvey Island has a population of over 11,000 people. Most of the people go to work on the mainland, travelling out and back daily. There are also important oil installations. There is no railway, and the sole link of the island community with the mainland is by means of a road over a swing bridge and a level-crossing on the mainland which is closed frequently during the working day.

As a consequence, the island's economic life and its development potential is throttled by traffic congestion. It has been established that during a normal working day, from 6 a.m. until 8 p.m., the level-crossing gates are closed for about 40 per cent, of the time. During the morning peak hours the gates are closed for 60 per cent. of the time, and during the evening peak hours for as much as 69 per cent. of the time. It is impossible in the short space of time at my disposal and in this atmosphere to convey very much of what this means to my constituents.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Mr. Braine

But it is obvious that very great inconvenience is caused both to residents on the island and to the large number of visitors who go there, particularly during the summer months, because Canvey Island enjoys a growing reputation as a holiday resort.

Secondly, very considerable delay is caused to commercial vehicles and public transport. I am advised that the elimination of the level-crossing gates and the introduction of a high-level bridge would reduce operating costs by many thousands of pounds a year.

Thirdly—this is a very important point, particularly bearing in mind the past history of Canvey Island—effective mutual aid in respect of fire and ambulance services cannot be implemented under present conditions. On a number of occasions ambulances have been held up at the level-crossing for 10 or 15 minutes or more, a delay which can make the difference between life and death.

Lastly, the floods last year gave the authorities a dreadful warning. I doubt very much whether the present bridge, which stood up to the strain very gallantly then, would withstand another great tidal surge sweeping down the Thames Estuary.

Everybody knows that the position is intolerable. Successive Ministers of Transport have admitted that it is unsatisfactory; the Essex County Council has admitted that it is unsatisfactory; and the local authorities admit that it is unsatisfactory.

In August, 1951, the right hon. Member for East Ham, South, then Minister of Transport, wrote to me saying that while he agreed that some improvement such as a high-level bridge was highly desirable, both to eliminate the level-crossing and the opening bridge over Benfleet Creek, as well as improve the road, the restricted funds available to him made it impossible to approve any road schemes at all other than those which were necessary to preserve essential communications.

The matter was again raised with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), the Minister of Transport in the following year. On 11th December, 1952, a body of ratepayers of Canvey Island who had raised the matter separately with the Ministry, were informed: The Minister agrees that an improvement of this nature is highly desirable, both to eliminate the level crossing and the opening bridge over Benfleet Creek, as well as to improve the road, but apart from certain works which are indispensable to the progress of the new towns or the reconstruction of blitzed cities, the restricted funds at his disposal makes it impossible for him to approve any major improvement schemes at all, however desirable they may be on general grounds, other than those specially designed to promote road safety. That was in 1952.

At the end of January, 1953, came the floods. It was only by a miracle, as this House well knows, that Canvey Island was saved. Momentarily every one was jolted into awareness of the precarious nature of the island's communications with the mainland. By the autumn the Highways Committee of the Essex County Council had placed the high-level bridge project second in the order of priority among the county's major road works. There was no doubt about it, because I have been told so by the county council, that what had happened during the floods played a large part in determining that priority.

My constituents and I find it exceedingly strange that, having decided that this bridge should be regarded as the second highest priority in the county, it should then be placed in the second five-year development plan. Why should that be? I wrote to the county council and got this answer on 11th December, 1953: … the Canvey Island scheme was not included in the first five-year period, as it was felt by the Highways Committee that, in view of the restrictions which had been, and were still being, imposed as a matter of Government policy on expenditure in connection with the maintenance and improvement of highways, it was most unlikely that it would be possible for work on a scheme of this magnitude to be commenced during that period. The scheme was therefore included in the plan as one of those to be commenced during the succeeding 15-year period. That is fair enough. But it is not only because the economic circumstances of the country have altered so dramatically since that letter was written that I am making this plea tonight.

I have discovered that, despite the high priority which the Essex County Council gives to this project, no attempt has yet been made by that authority to design a bridge or to prepare a detailed statement of cost. Before the war—the matter has been on the stocks for a long time—such a project would have cost about £100,000. Today estimates vary from £500,000 to £600,000. In one of the letters that I have had from the Ministry the figure of £650,000 is mentioned. Nobody really has a clue as to what the project would cost.

In short, the matter has been handled with such a lack of vigour that, even if approval in principle were forthcoming, it could not be given, because nobody would know what the project was going to cost. To be quite fair to the Essex County Council, there are certain difficulties. The first is that the Port of London Authority, which has jurisdiction over the narrow waterway which divides the island from the mainland, has refused to reduce the headroom that is required above highwater level. As a consequence, a possible saving by the county council of £200,000 or more on the total cost of the bridge cannot be effected.

It seems, too, that after months of negotiation and dilly-dallying, nobody yet has a clear idea as to whether the bridge should be where it is generally supposed to run—where the present bridge runs across Benfleet Creek—or whether, as the Port of London Authority suggests, it should run some 1,500 yards to the west.

The reasons for the Port of London Authority's attitude on this subject are not at all clear. The Authority has not taken the public into its confidence, and nobody has been able to find out why it insists on maintaining headroom, because the waterway is not used by commercial traffic but by small pleasure boats.

The second difficulty is that the county council, assuming it has a clear idea as to where the site is to be, says that to prepare plans would take 18 months and would involve considerable expense. It is not prepared to put its staff to work and to incur such expense without some promise of assistance from the Minister of Transport.

Here lies a dilemma. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, quite clearly, is not likely to authorise a grant unless a specific scheme is forthcoming. On the other hand, the Essex County Council will not prepare a specific scheme unless it has an assurance of financial support. So we have an impasse. In the meantime, my constituents are affected adversely. The development of the island is retarded.

I am told that there are proposals to import a considerable population under the Town Development Act. Presumably if that is done then industry must move in as well. Let us get the priorities right. It would be the height of folly to add to the population of Canvey Island before the high level bridge is provided. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will take due note of that.

But then this is all the more reason why a decision on the provision of such a bridge should be speeded. My abject in raising the matter tonight, therefore, is to urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to resolve this dilemma. Either funds are to be made available for the project, or they are not. If they are not, then let us be told. Then we shall know precisely where we stand and we can plan accordingly. Either the bridge is a high priority, as the Essex County Council say it is, or it is not. Either lip service is being paid to Canvey's claims or the county council genuinely believe that the bridge should be provided at the earliest possible opportunity. If the latter, why the delay?

Let us get the facts clear. What my constituents want to know is how the matter stands. It has hung fire long enough. If my hon. Friend considers that a grant would be forthcoming eventually—I do not say at present although the economic climate is improving rapidly—then surely some arrangement can be made now whereby the county council can get on with the job of deciding upon a specific scheme and getting out estimates of costs. I beg my hon. Friend to use his good offices to end the deadlock and to persuade the Essex County Council to get on with the job of planning the bridge. If my constituents can be given that assurance tonight they will be content.

10.13 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) has not unnaturally raised this question tonight because he and his constituents are much concerned about the communications between Canvey Island and the mainland. However, it does not necessarily follow that, because there is some problem involving communications, the Minister of Transport is the appropriate authority to deal with it. It was because my hon. Friend was under the impression that there was a deadlock that he thought it right to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight.

My information is that discussions are taking place between the Essex County Council, as the highway authority, and the Port of London Authority, which is concerned about the head room provided by any new bridge. I think that my hon. Friend is labouring under a misapprehension. These are difficult matters and these two important authorities are naturally considering the position and discussing it with each other, and the engineering experts are looking at each others arguments; but certainly so far as my information is concerned there is no deadlock and we in the Ministry of Transport hope that the discussions which are taking place will result in a satisfactory agreement being reached between the Essex County Council and the Port of London Authority.

This is an essential first step. The road and bridge come under the heading of a classified road. As such, the authority responsible for the building of them is the Essex County Council. My right hon. Friend is directly responsible only for trunk roads. Therefore he is not directly responsible in this case. If and when an agreement is reached and a satisfactory proposal made, then as soon as we can afford it we shall provide an appropriate grant for the building of the bridge and the necessary approaches to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay is very familiar with the line which has provisionally been drawn and which is intended to be close to where the bridge is at the present time. As far as we can make out, it seems likely that rather a different line will be taken on the mainland if the new bridge is constructed.

All these matters are the responsibility of the local highway authority and it is difficult for me to say anything about them. If, unfortunately, these two authorities were unable to reach an agreement—and I have no reason to suppose that that will happen—my right hon. Friend, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, might be called upon, under Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act, 1949, to decide one way or the other. Obviously it would be entirely wrong for me to give any indication of the views of the Department if it might be called upon to give a ruling in a quasi-judicial capacity. Indeed, I am quite unable to do so because the Department has been at pains to keep clear of this matter precisely because of this possibility. We hope, therefore, that the two bodies responsible will pursue their discussions and that they will, in the near future, arrive at a satisfactory agreement and decide where the bridge ought to be built and what the headroom should be over the creek.

I should not like to leave my hon. Friend without some indication of what our attitude will be if and when that agreement is come to. There is not the slightest doubt, as he said, that if Canvey Island is to be developed, and if indeed the residents and the industries already there are to have a satisfactory communication with the mainland, it is important that a new and better bridge and road should be constructed. In due course, we hope that that will be done, and we shall, of course, pay the grant appropriate for a Class II road.

At the same time, I ought to tell my hon. Friend that, in spite of the great increase in the amount of money which has been made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as was indicated by the Foreign Secretary in his speech in the debate on the Address—there are a number of other roads which would be likely to have priority over this one. The principle upon which grants are made for classified roads is their value as arteries of through-traffic. That, of course, is one of the disadvantages under which any island must necessarily labour, and so I cannot possibly hold out to my hon. Friend any hope that this particular bridge and road will be at the very head of the queue. At the same time, we are familiar with the needs of Canvey Island. My hon. Friend has once more explained those needs and has expressed them in a very forceful and cogent way. I look forward to the time when a new bridge and road will be constructed and when the appropriate grant will be made from the Road Fund.

Mr. Braine

While thanking my hon. Friend very much for what he has said, may I ask him whether he is seized of the point that I made, namely, that even if full agreement is reached between the Port of London Authority and the Essex County Council, the Essex County Council have made it clear that they will not proceed with the preparation of detailed plans without some assurance of financial aid from the Ministry? Though I do not expect my hon. Friend to commit himself on that point, would he be prepared to make some comment on it before he concludes?

Mr. Molson

Yes, indeed, I will gladly do so. If and when an agreement is arrived at between the two authorities, and after discussion with the Ministry of Transport, we should then think that it was reasonable and proper for the Essex County Council to begin to make the necessary preparations for the construction of the road. We attach the greatest importance to plans being prepared long in advance of the time when authority is given to begin the work. In point of fact, owing to the special problems connected with the sea, the creek, the tide, the mud and so on, I understand from our technical advisers that this will require very careful investigation before it is decided exactly how the bridge is to be sustained. Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate for the Essex County Council to begin to make these necessary preliminary preparations some time before it is possible to fit it actually into the programme for the year. As regards the designing of the bridge, it might be better for it not to be designed in advance because of the very rapid technical progress which is being made at present in the building of bridges.

I hope that what I have now added will give my hon. Friend the feeling that although I cannot indicate that anything can be done at present we confidently expect that this will be undertaken in due course, and we are anxious that ail necessary preliminaries should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Ten o'Clock.