HC Deb 08 July 1957 vol 573 cc161-8

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

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

I wish to draw attention to a matter which concerns both the life—

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.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Mr. Braine

I wish to draw attention to a matter which affects both the life and limb of my constituents and other users of the London-Shoeburyness Road—A.13—where it passes through my constituency, and the way in which the Essex highway authority has been discharging its duties. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for making it possible for me to raise this matter. I have taken this course with some reluctance for I had hoped that the matter could have been resolved in another way, but it has proved otherwise.

My purpose tonight is twofold: first, to expose one of the worst examples of official obstinacy and inefficiency on the part of a public authority that I have ever encountered; and, secondly, to prod into action those who have some responsibility in the matter.

Unhappily, danger spots on our roads are all too numerous. All of us can call examples to mind. The worst danger spot in my constituency is at the junction of the London-Shoeburyness Road and Woodfield Road, in Hadleigh. At this point, three people have lost their lives in the last two years and others have been injured. Everyone knows that this is a danger spot; there is no argument about it. The local authority knows; the local road safety committee knows; the police know; and the local residents know. Unless something is done soon to deal with the road conditions at this point it is almost certain that further fatalities and injuries will take place.

It might help if I set the scene. Between Hadleigh Church, which is in my constituency, and the western end of the County Borough of Southend, the London-Shoeburyness road curves for about half a mile. On the south side of the road there is a long stretch of open country, where one can look across the Thames Estuary towards the Kent coast. Drivers moving eastwards towards Southend from London tend to accelerate when they see this open country—all the more so when they find themselves emerging from the bottleneck at Hadleigh. They see this stretch of open road and their tendency is to go fast. Similarly, drivers coming from the built-up area of the County Borough of Southend, moving westwards towards London, do the same.

The carriageway, however, is only 30 feet wide, and it is not surprising that where the curve to which I have referred obscures vision, where the open country encourages drivers to put their feet down, there is a tendency for accidents to occur —and they occur with monotonous regularity. The danger is increased by the very heavy volume of traffic to and from Southend at certain times of the year. Only last weekend I was fortunate enough to obtain some up-to-date and authoritative figures which illustrate the heavy volume of traffic using this road.

On Saturday, 15th June—which was an exceptionally fine day— 16,782 vehicles passed in both directions between 10 a.m. and 12 midnight. On the following day, Sunday, 16th June, 20,440 vehicles passed during the same hours. On the following Saturday, 29th June, 14,748 vehicles passed, and on Sunday, 18,138 vehicles. I mention the precise figures so that those whose attention will. I hope, be drawn to what is said tonight will realise that these are authoritative figures.

The A.13 is not the only road into Southend from London. Some distance to the north, and running parallel to it, is the trunk road, A.127. I am informed from the same source that during the last weekend I quoted this road, which possesses a dual carriageway, carried about 40,000 vehicles. Thus we have the extraordinary position that the A.13, a narrow single carriageway, carries only 25 per cent. less traffic in peak periods over the weekend than the A.127, a trunk road with a dual carriageway. It is clear that these figures show that the A.13 is bearing an unusually heavy proportion of traffic moving to and from Southend. It is clear, also, that special attention should be paid by those responsible to the known danger spots on that road.

I propose to unfold the way in which those responsibilities have been discharged by the highway authority. Last November, the vicar of the Parish of St. Barnabas wrote to me and complained that though he had raised the matter of this particular danger spot about twelve months before, no action had been taken. Apparently, following the death of one of his parishioners, he had written to the local authority, the Benfleet Urban District Council, and was told by that body that this was a matter for the county. He had pursued his inquiries; petitions had been organised, but nothing had happened. On 30th April last year the vicar wrote to the Chief Constable. He had a very prompt reply, within a day or so, saying courteously that his letter had been passed on to the county surveyor. He heard nothing further and did not even receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

In July, the vicar lost another parishioner, on this occasion an elderly lady, who was killed at precisely the same spot. He wrote again and inquired what was happening. This time he received an acknowledgement, but nothing more. The months slipped by and in November the vicar thought the time was ripe for a new approach. His church council asked me to intervene. I made the usual inquiries before writing to my right hon. Friend. The local authority, the Benfleet Urban District Council, revealed that there had been a long-drawn-out argument with the county. In this, they had had the support of the police.

I was advised that the police and the local authority considered that the ideal solution for this danger spot was the widening of the road and the provision of an island refuge. The county highway authority, on the other hand, took the view that the situation would best be met by the provision of a pedestrian crossing. My hon. Friend will know that the significance of this proposal was that the provision of an island refuge and the widening of the road would be the responsibility of the county, but the provision of a pedestrian crossing would be the responsibility of the local authority.

Now, the Benfleet Urban District Council, no doubt quite properly, declined to accept the proposal of the county on the ground that, first, there was insufficient pedestrian traffic to justify the installation of a pedestrian crossing and, secondly, there was need to slow down the traffic to prevent drivers from accelerating and overtaking at this point where visibility was so bad.

Nevertheless, the county authority was adamant, and—this is what I want to rub in—despite the fact that the official representative of my right hon. Friend, the divisional road engineer, as long ago as October, advised that an island refuge was the proper solution, it declined his advice. So we had this situation by the end of last year. The dispute had dragged on for many months. Two people had been killed and there had been a number of other accidents. An impasse had been reached.

At this point, perhaps I might remind my hon. Friend that Benfleet Urban District Council, the local road safety committee, the county constabulary and the Minister's own representative were all in favour of the provision of an island refuge and were opposed to the idea of a pedestrian crossing.

Mr. Speaker

This raises an interesting point in procedure. I was of the opinion, when the hon. Member applied for this Adjournment, that he was going to put the responsibility somehow on the Minister, but all I have heard tonight have been complaints against the local authority and not against the Minister. I do not know how far the Minister has any responsibility in what the hon. Member is discussing.

Mr. Braine

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that to the extent that the county authority would derive funds from the Ministry, and to the extent that my hon. Friend has a local representative whose function it is to advise the county authority, there is some responsibility in this matter resting upon my right hon. Friend. It is my hope, in raising this matter in this way, that my hon. Friend —who I am certain, judging by the correspondence I have had with him—feels grave concern about this, will use his best offices to bring suitable pressure to bear upon the county authority. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how I may raise a matter which concerns so seriously the life and limb of my constituents.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

I am not sure whether I can help very much here, but I certainly do not wish to prevent my hon. Friend from ventilating his grievance. I am bound to say, however, that my replies will draw attention to the fact that I am not responsible for this state of affairs. I am willing to grant aid to the work that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but my reply will be that the main deficiency is not mine, nor that of my Ministry.

Mr. Speaker

That is about the end of it.

Mr. Braine

Further to that, Mr. Speaker. I think that perhaps I might be of assistance to you and to my hon. Friend if I point out that a different situation has since arisen. The county has made a suggestion which my hon. Friend the Minister has, in fact, turned down, so, unless I am in a position to question my hon. Friend as to the reasons my right hon. Friend has intervened so decisively, we are back in the position in which we were when I intervened six months ago.

Mr. Nugent

Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend. If you, Mr. Speaker, ruled it in order, I could make my reply in the terms of why we have refused the proposal put up by the local authority and prefer the alternative we suggested. That might perhaps bring this within the matters for which I am responsible.

Mr. Speaker

I am rather doubtful about all this. The more I have heard of this case as it developed the more it seemed to me that the hon. Member's complaint is against the county council, which, I presume, is the highway authority, and on the Adjournment we are concerned with matters of ministerial responsibility. I am doubtful whether what the Minister proposes to do would really be in order in this matter. I think that the hon. Member had ventilated his complaint before I awoke to the fact that it was possibly out of order, but perhaps he had better leave it there at the moment.

Mr. Braine

With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I make just one further point? It was precisely because an impasse had been reached that, finally, the local authority capitulated to the county highway authority's suggestion that there should be a pedestrian crossing. As far as my constituents were concerned, this was a decision of a kind. At this particular point my right hon. Friend intervened, as he has power to do, to tell the county authority that he will not accept its solution. We are thus back in precisely the situation that existed six months ago, and I do, with great humility, submit that my hon. Friend has some responsibility here in that he has intervened.

Perhaps I may add this. During this latest period of impasse a third person has been killed, and unless someone takes it upon himself to make a decision—in this case, the county authority came to a decision which my hon. Friend as I believe quite rightly, turned down —this state of affairs will continue. There will be further fatalities as surely as night follows day.

Mr. Speaker

I have heard a lot of Adjournment debates, and it is usually the Minister who is the target of whatever criticism there is. An Adjournment debate cannot be used merely to attack a county council. But if there is any Ministerial responsibility which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would like to discharge in this matter, the House would, of course, be glad to hear him.

Mr. Nugent

I wonder whether I may assist the House, Mr. Speaker, by making this suggestion. If my hon. Friend cared to direct his criticism against my refusal to accept the proposal of the local authority, I should then be pleased to reply to that. Perhaps that would enable him to keep in order, and to conclude his remarks.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has delivered his speech. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can reply to what has been said.

10.17 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

Certainly, I will be very pleased to. I think that the substance of my reply should—if you rule it to be in order—deal with why my right hon. Friend and I have refused the proposal of the local authority and have preferred the solution which it has rejected. Perhaps it will be in order if I direct my argument to that.

I immediately acknowledge that my hon. Friend's argument is well grounded. This is, of course, a dangerous bit of road. It is very heavily trafficked, and there is a danger for pedestrians crossing it. I sympathise with him in his anxieties to see improvement there.

Without going into the details of the various discussions and interchanges that there have been between the local authorities, I can say that what has emerged from these discussions is that the county highway authority—that is, the Essex County Council—has made a proposal that there should be a pedestrian crossing at this junction on A.13. After carefully considering this proposal, we have felt obliged to advise against it.

Although it is true that this stretch of road is subject to a 30-mile-an-hour limit, where we are prepared to consider pedestrian crossings, we think that this particular piece of road will be unsuitable for one. First, the traffic moves rather fast there—although there is a 30-mile limit —because, as my hon. Friend has said, the country has the appearance of being open country and, therefore, despite the limit, motorists tend sometimes to exceed it.

Secondly, not many pedestrians cross at this point. Thirdly, it is a winding road, where visibility is poor. We have found by experience that motorists will only give sufficient respect to a pedestrian crossing to make it reasonably safe for pedestrians to cross where it is fairly frequently used. Then motorists learn to expect that pedestrians will be on the crossing and they pay more attention to it.

The fact of the matter is that pedestrian crossings—this is a point of which one must never lose sight—do not afford any mechanical or automatic safety. The safety given to people on pedestrian crossings is solely the result of the judgment of pedestrian and driver. To achieve that necessary element of judgment, we have found that certain conditions are essential. One of them is a fairly regular flow of pedestrians over the crossing; the other is that there should be good visibility. Neither of those conditions obtains here. In addition, the traffic travels rather fast.

Therefore, we felt that the crossing was not the right solution, but, recognising that something was needed, we suggested to our Divisional Road Engineer that a central island should be placed in this road so that pedestrians would have the greater safety of crossing the road half at a time. As all of us know, there is no greater contribution to safety than a central refuge because it allows people to cross one half of the road at a time. My personal conviction is that these central islands make possibly a greater single contribution to road safety for pedestrians than anything else and I am warmly in favour of the proposal that we made here.

Because the road is so narrow, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, it would, however, be necessary to widen it before a central island could be put there safely without interfering with the normal flow of traffic. Our advice to the highway authority was to provide a central island, combined with the widening of the road for the necessary length to make it safe. We offered the authority the 75 per cent. grant which would be normal for a Class 1 road of this kind.

As you have already observed, Mr. Speaker, not infrequently Ministers find themselves being criticised on matters of this kind, but here is one where we have been ready and willing to contribute a fairly considerable sum of money. However, the highway authority took the view that the remaining cost was too heavy. The total expenditure will probably be something in the order of £10,000, and it felt in all the circumstances that it was not justified. There the matter lies.

We have over a period done what we can to encourage the highway authority to see the wisdom of our advice and, as we see it, the unsoundness of its proposal. In response to a Parliamentary Question by my hon. Friend recently I said that I would use my good offices locally, and I have had letters sent to the various people concerned to see if it is possible to get a reconsideration of our proposal. We have, at any rate, had a response from the Traffic Commissioners in regard to the siting of the bus stops, which I think could with advantage be altered.

I hope that it may be possible to persuade the Highway authority to give further consideration to our advice in this matter. I agree with my hon. Friend that something is needed there, and if there is anything I can do to help bring about safe conditions there I shall gladly do it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.