HC Deb 29 November 1965 vol 721 cc1193-202

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

12.44 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

Whatever the title of this debate, and however modest its scope, we are debating the future of Hull and I hope for a positive and helpful statement when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply. For 13 long years Tory Ministers have been useless and passive in this matter of affording communications to Hull, save, perhaps, for some nine miles of dual carriageway west of Hull. I expect better of my own Government.

Hull is the third port in the United Kingdom. Vast sums have been, are being and will be spent on the docks—something like £40 million in the coming years. "the docks handle 17 million tons of cargo a year. It is vitally important for our lifeblood that we have fast and accessible means of communication. If we compare a not dissimilar port like Bristol, Bristol has at least four motorways and the bridge across the Severn.

There is considerable feeling in Hull about the long and continuing neglect concerning the communications west to Leeds and Liverpool and to the Midlands and further south, which could be made much more direct and more adequate by getting over the estuary with the proposed Humber bridge. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has seen the Yorkshire Post of last Tuesday which made some tart comments about it.

At long last, in October 1962 the Conservative Minister commissioned a firm of consultants, Scott, Wilson and Kirkpatrick, to examine the road requirements between Hull and the A.1, including the crossing of the Ouse. This was completed in 1964 and published in September, 1965, together with the Minister's conclusions. This new scheme will cost nearly £50 million but work will not begin until the early 1970s. The Minister has so far accepted this without modification.

I can safely say that leaders in all walks of life in Hull want a plan which will give a co-ordinated and coherent network for the whole of Humberside Let me make it clear that the Humber bridge and the east and west roads are not mutually exclusive, as some people, perhaps, have foolishly stated. All interests in Hull believe that a dual carriageway from Hull to the A.1 is an imperative necessity, but they also believe that the bridge is equally necessary, or will be equally necessary in the very near future.

The Humber is the only main river in England without a bridge or tunnel crossing. The estuary is a formidable barrier to traffic moving between North and South and South-West. It extends 40 miles from Spurn Head, or roughly one-third of the distance across England at this latitude. The nearest bridge is Booth Ferry, across the Ouse to Goole, 45 miles distant from Spurn Head and 28 miles from Hull.

Regarding the Scott, Wilson plan, accepted by the Minister, my complaint is that the Ministry of Transport consulting engineers were given terms of reference too limited. For example, they merely considered roads north of the Humber, traffic surveys were limited to Selby, Goole, Doncaster and the south side of the Humber was not studied. I again submit that the report is in many ways, if not obsolete, at least obsolescent having regard to the fact that in 1962 proposals by the Government for Humberside development were not envisaged. Now, we have a Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council.

I should like to quote what has been said by the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University, Sir Roger Stevens. He told the Yorkshire Post that the Council considered that there was an urgent need for the bridge. The Council—I quote— believe that the economic development of the area depends to some extent on the bridge being built. History elsewhere had shown that the building of a major bridge had been the basis of development in an area. We are to have a high-level bridge at Hook with 85 ft. headroom costing £5½ million, which is almost half of what it would cost to build the Humber bridge between Ferriby, on the north bank, and Barton-on-Humber, on the Lincolnshire side. This proposed bridge is only two miles from the existing bridge at Booth Ferry. It will not obviate the need for a new bridge at Selby, a few miles to the north, which, the Ministry states, would need only 25 feet headroom.

Having said all this, however, I must say that a dual carriageway from Hull to the Al is a plain necessity now because the existing highway west via Howden, Goole and Thorne is tortuous and notorious. The bottleneck at Elloughton is a nightmare. The single-lane canal bridge at Thorne is a scandal. The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) has shown me a letter which was sent to him by the Minister of Transport about the Thorne bypass. I would quote two lines from it, in which he is talking about having automatic means of opening the gates, which will reduce the time taken in opening them by one minute. He writes: We must look to the bypass to provide the remedy for through traffic. Attractive though a secondary temporary bridge alongside the present swingbridge may sound, it could not be provided for several years. I would like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say that in the morning he will ask the Army Engineers to fling up a Bailey bridge at least for the next three or four years till we get the Thorne bypass.

Again, in passing, I would mention—though the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) could make the point better than I—the archaic anachronism of the Selby toll bridge which has been flogged time after time in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) because of the tolls and the whole nature of the bridge. The locals have given up hope, although my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West still carries on the fight.

Finally, to cap everything, the dynamic Minister of Housing and Local Government at the Blackpool conference of the Labour Party—I see him here—proposed the Humber as the site for the largest new town in Europe, with 750,000 population. My mind boggles at the thought. Perhaps it might be more in scale if the new town development had been for 150,000 or 250,000–1 do not know—given a bridge across the Humber, which might happen, said the Minister of Housing and Local Government, "if we have the courage to decide these things."

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Johnson

If we had the courage I think that with that and a little imagination we could build the future of Hull.

Then came the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's statement in the Hull Daily Mail of 11 th November which incensed at least some local opinion. I want the Minister, if he will, to elucidate two vital points about this. I have the cutting here. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would tell us, first, what difference, if any, exists between his Department and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government regarding building the Humber bridge, particularly, of course, in the matters of timing and finance. He said that the Ministry of Transport is in close touch with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Department of Economic Affairs and the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council. Perhaps he will elaborate that a little tonight.

Do both Departments accept that the bridge can be urgently needed in the future? Do they both accept that the Government will give assistance in some form, through percentage grant or in loans? Secondly, regarding the £50 million scheme for improving the road network linking Hull with the Al and Doncaster, when will details of this scheme be given to local authorities? I would say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the delay is causing confusion and misunderstanding among local authorities and playing havoc with their planning in their own areas, particularly with regard to Goole and the area south of the proposed bridge. Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that he will speed this up as far as humanly possible?

Lastly, I ask for some imagination by the Government over our future on Humberside. Here is literally the only open belt of country left in the United Kingdom that is suitable for large scale development. Kingston-upon-Hull is the gateway to the Continent for the North and the Midlands. Let us have the courage that we talked about a few minutes ago. Let us have some inspiration for these lonely towns on the Humber so that they can go ahead boldly into the 1970's.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wood (Bridlington)

Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the case which has been very comprehensively put by the hon. Gentleman, I wonder whether I might put two very short questions to him?

First, can he explain, either on this occasion or on another, exactly what has happened to the comprehensive plan which was put forward by the East Riding County Council to meet these problems?

Secondly, can he give some indication, either now or in the fairly near future, of the order in which the improvements are going to take place? He will appreciate that unless the order is correct from the point of view of Hull and the East Riding, it will be a very long time before the benefits in terms of traffic become apparent, either to Hull or the East Riding.

12.56 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) for raising this important subject here tonight.

It is a very important subject, because we recognise that Hull is one of our major ports, and Humberside as a whole is an important and very lively region of the country.

The British Transport Docks Board has invested very substantial sums in improved port facilities in Hull in recent years. That investment is continuing, and there are proposals which we are now considering at the Ministry of Transport for a major extension of the docks system at Hull.

On the other side of the estuary, the port of Immingham has developed since the war into one of our most important ports for the handling of bulk cargoes, and its role in that field is still continuing.

Therefore we accept that Hull and Humberside are a region that must have good road links with the rest of the country. Some two months ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced his decision to provide a new trunk road network recommended by the engineering consultants who had been appointed by his predecessor late in 1962 to examine the problem in the region. I am not going to go into the background of the recommendations that were made, because that has been dealt with by my hon. Friend.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Minister consulted all the local bodies and interests before he announced his decision two months ago. In particular, he sought the views of the Regional Planning Council for Yorkshire and Humberside, which did not exist in the days of the Tory Administration and is a new creation of the Labour Government. It was therefore possible from the very early days of its existence to seek its views.

Only two of the bodies that he consulted disagreed with the views that had been put forward. One of those was the Humber Bridge Board, which had acquired powers under the Humber Bridge Act, 1959, to provide a bridge over the Humber between Barton and Hessle. Quite naturally, they thought that priority should be given in the new network to the inclusion of a Humber bridge.

The other dissentient was the East Riding County Council, which favoured a more northerly line for the new east-west route in the road network. But they did not dissent on the question of the Humber bridge. The views of the East Riding County Council and the bridge board apart, my right hon. Friend thus secured agreement that the network which he was inclined to favour was the right one. Moreover, in order to be sure that he fully understood the case in favour of including the Humber Bridge in the network, he had received in March of this year a deputation from the Humber Bridge Board itself. Contrary to some Press reports, my right hon. Friend received that deputation. My hon. Friend was present on that occasion, and he will remember that my right hon. Friend listened sympathetically to the case put forward by the Humber Bridge Board, and he agreed that the Board should put its case to all the local authorities concerned, which it did. None of the local authorities having studied the Board's case, took the view that a bridge over the Humber was a more urgent priority than an improved trunk road network.

I should like to explain why my right hon. Friend chose this particular network, which of course does not include a Humber bridge. The consulting engineers who were appointed by my right hon. Friend's predecessor carried out a detailed traffic survey in the area between the Al and Humberside. This showed that the through traffic movements were quite complex, but they identified five main flows. The two most important flows are, in this order, from Hull to Doncaster, Sheffield and the Midlands, and from south of the Humber to Doncaster, Sheffield and the Midlands, two east-west, or diagonal, flows. The third and fourth most important flows are from Hull to the West Riding conurbation and beyond, and from south of the Humber to the West Riding conurbation and beyond, in that order. There is also a significant flow from the Doncaster area to the North Yorkshire resorts.

There is no reason to believe that the direction and importance of the through traffic flows in this area have changed significantly since the survey made by the consultants. Hon. Members will immediately note that three of these flows of traffic are what might be termed diagonal flows from Hull in the Doncaster direction; from south of the Humber in the West Riding direction; and from the Doncaster area to the North Yorkshire resorts. These are the principal traffic flows, the heavy traffic flows, in this area.

The network which we intend to provide will cater principally for those flows of traffic in that the new routes north of the Humber and the new improved road south of the Humber will be linked by the new north-south route between East Cowick and Thorne. Thus, the diagonal flows will be able to get easily in the direction they want, and at the same time the straight east-west flows north and south of the river will be well catered for. This is based entirely on the technical surveys made by the engineers of the traffic flows. We therefore believe that the network approved by my right hon. Friend will provide the most economical way of catering for the main traffic flows between Humberside and the Great North Road.

It is true that the Humber Bridge Board has recommended a network including a bridge over the Humber which would cost less than the network which has been approved by my right hon. Friend, but on examination we find that this is only half a network. It would not by any means cater effectively for all the five major trunk flows which I have just mentioned.

We have examined this question most carefully, because it is a very important matter to the Humberside Region, and have come to the conclusion that no satisfactory trunk road network including a Humber Bridge could be built for much less than £60 million. The network without the bridge, which we are now proposing as an urgent priority, will certainly not cost more than £50 million at present prices. Therefore, in consideration of the limitation of funds for road schemes and transport schemes in general we must consider this network to have a higher priority than the other.

But there is no question of ruling out a bridge over the Humber. We recognise that it would bring great benefits to the Humberside Region. In fairness, having quoted the opinion of the Regional Planning Council, I should point out that it gave first priority to the trunk road network as recommended by the consulting engineers, but attached great importance to the provision of a bridge as soon as possible. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall not allow the future development of the region to be hampered and stultified by the lack of a bridge. If a bridge becomes essential we shall give its construction the go-ahead.

My hon. Friend referred to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government at Blackpool. In October, at Blackpool, he presented the vision of a great new city on the southern side of the Humber. Obviously, the Humber Bridge will become top priority if a decision is taken to promote and facilitate the urban development suggested as a possibility by my right hon. Friend. On the feasibility of this we in the Ministry are in close touch with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Department of Economic Affairs, and other bodies concerned with the Region's future. These studies will be pressed ahead as rapidly as possible. But at the moment, on traffic grounds the bridge is not an indispensable project; what is indispensable is to improve conditions for the existing heavy flows of through traffic in the area.

As we see it now, this work must come first. The existing needs for the traffic in this area are so strong that we must deal with them before we consider the future needs of the area. Nevertheless, we have deliberately planned these roads so that if it is decided to construct the Humber Bridge it will be possible to graft it on to the new road network. In other words, these are not alternatives that we have been considering—as has been suggested in some sections of the Press in this area. We regard these road schemes as indispensable anyway, but if it proves from a decision taken by the Government that the Humber Bridge is indispensable on the ground of development on 'he southern side of the Humber, it is easily possible to reconcile these schemes with the development of the bridge.

Our road plans for this area were discussed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government before we announced them, and he agreed that we should give priority to them. The point is that a new city on the southern side of the Humber is a long-term project and, as I have said, our network is specifically designed so that it can be extended to include a Humber Bridge whenever this is called for by further developments on Humberside—whether it be a large new city or on account of the expansion of existing towns, or anything else. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that there is any difference of policy here between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Housing; we are in very close contact on these questions.

Of course, those in the area and my hon. Friend who so ably represents them are naturally interested in the immediate developments. There are, of course, immediate priorities in this respect. Some of this network of roads which we have approved are already in my right hon. Friend's trunk roads programme. I refer, for example, to the Thorne bypass, which will cost £3 million. This is a particularly important scheme, because it forms part of the "crosspiece" which will be used by traffic making the most important diagonal journeys on the lines I have mentioned.

We hope that the construction work on the Thorne bypass will be started in the next few years. We also hope that work will be started by 1968 at the latest on the Elloughton bypass. This is another scheme costing over £1 million, which, as my hon. Friend knows, is designed to improve the existing main westerly outlet from Hull. These are the most urgent priorities as we see them. The remaining part of the more than £50 million-worth of schemes which my right hon. Friend has approved in connection with road accesses around Hull will, of course, be urgently considered in the rolling programme on which my right hon. Friend has now to take decisions.

As the House knows, this has to be considered from year to year in accordance with the priorities which we have to set, depending on the pressure of demand for road schemes arising from traffic flows. My right hon. Friend has the very difficult task of making judgments as to when these schemes should be programmed. As from year to year we judge the "roll-forward" of the roads programme, we shall consider urgently in accordance with our scheme of priorities the £50 million-worth of schemes which my right hon. Friend has approved, and we shall try to programme them, in addition to the Thorne and Elloughton bypasses, as soon as we can.

We shall of course take into account very seriously the views put forward by the East Riding County Council, which have been mentioned tonight by the right hon. Member for Bridlington and other schemes which have been put forward——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes past One o'clock.