HC Deb 23 October 1968 vol 770 cc1547-56

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

3.7 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

This is the second time tonight that the House has heard of the affairs of my constituency. During the debate on the Town and Country Planning Bill, we heard how Abingdon beat off the attack by the Southern Gas Board and thereby saved the town's amenities, and this led to a revolution in planning in the area.

It is now possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to make his name in Abingdon by being the first Minister to make up his mind about the route of the Abingdon bypass and so become famous in my constituency. I have to make a pretty sharp attack on his Department. He will understand that I do not like to do this, because I once served there as Joint Parliamentary Secretary, although that was in civil aviation many years ago.

The traffic situation in Abingdon is now a matter of widespread criticism. It has been well known to Ministers for a long time, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have commented on it to me. Failure to deal with it lies fairly and squarely on the Minister, and also for the dilatory manner in which it has been handled over the past four or five years and more. It is causing the utmost annoyance to all parties. The hon. Gentleman knows that he can expect relentless pressure from me in this House until there is a decision about the route of the proposed bypass, although there will be a separate question which is not part of this debate tonight, of an inner relief road.

It is not as if the position were new. For years the Department, through Ministers and officials' letters, have been sending out soothing messages to the local authorities and me until we cease to believe what we are being told. I will give an example of the sort of information one has received, in this case through a Question in the House on 24th July last. The hon. Gentleman himself then said that he was fully conscious of the need for an early decision. This has been stated many times, at any rate since 1964. Meanwhile, the volume of traffic along the A.34 through Abingdon is increasing, according to the Department's own statement, at an annual rate of 61 per cent. Worse still, according to the borough council, the size of the loads has grown at an estimated 50 per cent. and much larger vehicles are being used.

For want of a decision on this route, a great deal of local controversy and uncertainty is building up. It is no exaggeration to say that everyone is fed up with the position. The manner in which we have been fobbed off in the last few years is very disquieting.

On 4th February, 1966, the Minister of State said: We are not quite ready to announce a decision for the line of a bypass at Abingdon. We hope it will not be too long"— We in Abingdon were pleased about that, but how wrong we were. One local newspaper said that this sort of statement from Parliamentary Secretaries almost had power to freeze the blood. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the situation is getting a great deal warmer, even if what that newspaper said is true.

These anodyne statements from the Department are not very sincere, because they have not always been true. On 9th December, 1964, I took a deputation to see the Minister of State—I do not wish to make any personal attack on him, but he has been the channel through which most of these messages have come—and was told that three months study would be required before this matter could be settled. That was two years before the statement that the matter would receive an early decision.

The result is that the county council and the Abingdon Borough Council are in complete despair. On 16th June, 1966, the Minister of State said: I know that you will be glad to hear that we shall be instructiing Berkshire County Council to prepare Draft Orders fixing a line of new road at South Hinksey to a point south of Abingdon by-passing it to the west. That was also raised on 13th July, 1966, when I took another deputation to another Parliamentary Secretary. Of course there has been controversy about which side of Abingdon the road should go, and also on the necessity for a spur road to Didcot. I shall not go into those questions. I am talking of the need for Ministerial decision because, until then, there cannot be constructive discussion among the local authorities or the owners of property who may be affected by the road.

On 16th August, 1966, the Minister of State again referred to the urgent need for a bypass at Abingdon and said that the Minister had decided in principle to bypass it to the west at the earliest possible date. Thus, we have had a flow of reassuring statements meaning nothing. This is bad administration, and I feel bound to criticise it strongly. It was said on 22nd November, 1966, that the road was being programmed from South Hinksey to Drayton but would not be built south of Drayton for ten years.

Bearing in mind that I have been able, with the local authorities, to interview farmers, fruit growers and property owners along that road, it is embarrassing for us to be told regularly that the decision is being taken soon. These people are naturally very annoyed at the effect upon their property.

Six months later, in April 1967, the Minister of State said: We are now finally narrowing the choice of a line for the proposed new road from South Hinksey to Chilton. Was that statement true when he made it? Nothing has happened since it was made. My constituents are justified in being very angry. The Minister of State is well known for his conscientious work in the Ministry, and he has been very helpful to me in other matters. But such statements should not be made. That statement proved yet another false alarm; people were falsely encouraged by it.

In October 1967, a new Parliamentary Secretary told me: Our investigations and examinations of alternative alignments should be complete quite soon. In the ordinary meaning of the English language, that meant that we might expect a decision quite soon, but that was what had been said since 1964, if not before, when the previous Government were in power. It is hopeless to go on receiving such statements when nothing will happen.

Then came the present Parliamentary Secretary, who dropped a bombshell in January, 1968. After all the previous encouraging observations, he said that the scheme could not be considered in isolation from a major route between the Midlands, Oxford and Southampton. This statement fell like a lead balloon on Abingdon. I do not know what route he was referring to. He did not say then, but perhaps he can tell us something about it tonight. On 12th March, 1968, he said, "Our outlook has widened", but he did not say in which direction and whether there would be a decision about the route.

The only thing I could do was to hold a meeting of interested parties, local authorities and other bodies. This was held on 17th June, when I promised to campaign in the House for a decision. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I mean exactly what I say by the word "campaign", and I shall continue to do this

The alternative routes have been examined for several months. On 24th July the hon. Gentleman said that he was looking at a line east of the town suggested by C.P.R.E. Perhaps he would care to comment on that tonight. That statement reawakened the argument about where the line should go. The hon. Gentleman has information about a route from the divisional road engineer, and the rates of return offered by the latest scheme are much more satisfactory than in the past.

Not everyone agrees where the road should go, but everyone wants a decision. To have had encouraging assurances for several years is bad administration, and it would have been better not to have made them until there was a possibility of saying something constructive.

Therefore, I await the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the manner in which my constituents and I have been embarrassed by those misleading promises.

3.18 a.m.

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

The hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has pleaded most convincingly the case for the early relief of traffic congestion in the narrow streets of Abingdon and neighbouring built-up lengths of the A 34.

As I have told him on a number of occasions already, we recognise the problem and are doing everything we can to solve it as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so within the priorities of future road planning.

The hon. Gentleman asks that a line should be published without further delay, and makes the whole thing sound very simple, as though we were deliberately going out of our way to hold up this work. In fact, as he knows very well the need to relieve traffic congestion at Abingdon is well understood by us—it is certainly well understood by me—and the best means of doing so is a problem which has occupied the attention of the Department for a considerable time.

It is not simply a matter of selecting what might appear at first sight to be a reasonable line, to publish the line and then be damned. It is not as simple as this. We must ensure that the choice we make is the best one taking into account the need to get the best value we can from the investment and, equally important, the need to avoid unnecessary interference with the interests of the local communities worst likely to be affected by a new road. This is where our preparation pool procedures come in. They enable us to investigate possible alternative solutions and to ensure that the best is chosen.

For this reason, and because on our general assessment of need a bypass of Abingdon appeared to justify relatively high priority, a scheme was included in the first instalment of the trunk road preparation pool announced in February 1967. Indeed, preliminary investigations into possible lines had been carried out even earlier. As we then saw it, the choice appeared to lie between a fairly close western bypass around Abingdon and Drayton, running southwards from the Oxford bypass at South Hinksey, and a more distant eastern bypass which involved two new crossings of the River Thames.

The hon. Member has mentioned earlier indications that a draft Order to establish the line of the new road would be published before the end of 1967. We had certainly hoped that our investigations would justify the publication of details of a proposed line at an early date, at the time my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave the hon. Member this information.

Unfortunately, as I have informed the hon. Member in correspondence, the first calculations of the rates of return for the preferred scheme were disappointingly low. They were a good deal lower, in fact, than the rates offered by many other trunk road schemes elsewhere in the country, and the result was that, on the basis of national comparisons, the Abingdon scheme appeared to merit no particularly high priority.

To have published a line at that stage, when the scheme was likely to attract little or no standing in the road programme certainly would not have helped to get the road built more quickly. If anything its progress would certainly have been hindered. We might, with some justification, have shelved the scheme completely at this point, but this was never the Government's wish. Instructions were issued that further investigations should be put in hand to discover if possible a more acceptable solution which would offer a better return on our investment. When we talk about investment it is the investment of public funds.

This gave us an opportunity to review the position on the basis of the very latest traffic information which had come to hand since the first calculations were made and to make absolutely sure that we were not overlooking any new factor which might improve the rate of return. It also enabled us to take a closer look at the way in which any proposals for Abingdon might be affected by possible longer term improvements of the strategic road network between the Midlands and the South Coast ports. This is the reply the hon. Gentleman referred to from my predecessor, now the Minister of Defence for Equipment. Would it be possible, for instance, to devise a scheme which would solve Abingdon's immediate problem and at the same time serve as a first step towards possible long-term development?

This meant that, as one part of the general investigation, we needed to examine also the merits of a more distant western bypass of the Abingdon area, related to the needs of long distance traffic, rather than the shorter by-pass more specifically designed for the relief of Abingdon and Drayton. I make no apologies for pleading that such investigations took time. They were bound to take time if an adequate and comprehensive assessment of the relative merits of alternative routes was to be carried out. Hon. Members would quite rightly be the first to criticise us if these essential steps were not taken.

We must ensure that the limited funds in the roads programme even though they are greater than ever in our history are spent in the best possible way and with the minimum of interference with the interests of the various authorities and individuals likely to be affected by the building of a large road scheme. This is a prerequisite of any democratic society. The investigations involved us in discussion with a number of local authorities and associations whose views are invaluable in helping us reach decisions.

The Berkshire branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, for example, asked that an eastern bypass of Abingdon should again be investigated, on a new line which would involve only one Thames Crossing. We had already examined and rejected one possible line to the east, but we had a look at this new suggestion from the C.P.R.E. and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that we should have ignored the representation of the Council.

Mr. Neave

I never said anything of the kind. I was complaining of a series of statements which proved to be untrue as to when the line was to be decided.

Mr. Brown

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thought I suggested that. What I said was that I was certain that he would not suggest that we should have ignored these representations.

Meetings were held to discuss a possible line through Bagley Wood near South Hinksey. In these discussions the Department of Forestry at Oxford University and the Ministry's Landscape Advisory Committee were involved. In passing, we are always grateful for the expertise which these specialists offer on the amenity aspect of road schemes.

The problems of taking a road through orchard country south of Drayton have also been examined in detail in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture; and there has been lengthy correspondence with local authorities who would be involved if the bypass were taken between Abingdon and Shippon.

These are the kind of consultations and discussions which go on continuously during the preliminary stages of scheme preparation, to ensure that every feasible alternative is adequately investigated before a decision on the publication of a draft road line is made. I suggest that no one would deny it is essential to have the right line when spending large sums of public money.

The hon. Member for Abingdon has been in regular correspondence with the Ministry, and he has been assured that we have been pushing ahead with all these complex investigations just as quickly as possible consistent with the need for the thorough examination of each alternative proposal.

In July I told him in answer to a Question that the additional information we needed should be available during August and that a decision would be taken as soon as possible thereafter. I am glad to be able to say that a report has since been received from the Ministry's agents, the Berkshire County Council, and I can take this opportunity to inform the hon. Member that, based on this latest available data, we are now satisfied that the economic rates of return are a good deal better than the earlier assessments had led us to suppose Assuming that costs remain as now estimated, this bypass scheme will certainly merit inclusion in the firm programme.

We have still to complete one or two further detailed enquiries to ensure that what we propose will keep interference with the public to the inescapable minimum. I am sure no hon. Member would deny the fundamental importance of this. When these final investigations are completed we will publish details of the proposed line.

I regret that I cannot say, this evening, exactly when publication will be possible and it would be premature for me to give details of the line we prefer, but I am prepared to say that, unless some unexpected new factor should arise in the next few weeks, which I have no cause to suppose, the proposed line will be to the west of Abingdon and that we should be ready for formal publication next Spring.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that the final decision will not be delayed one day longer than need be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Three o'clock a.m.