HC Deb 23 May 1969 vol 784 cc913-20

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale (Harwich)

In an Adjournment debate on the transport problems in North-East Essex it is difficult to select priorities: time is not on one's side. I should have liked to have raised the problem of increased fares, especially the large increase in bus fares which has affected so many retired people in North-East Essex; I am tempted to go into detail of some of the difficulties of railway season ticket holders who have been so tried by the unpunctuality of their trains; I felt that I should say something about the cuts in train services between Harwich and Ipswich and press for later nightly trains to the North-East Essex coast. However, I fear that I shall have time to raise only what I consider to be the most pressing of the transport problems in North-East Essex, those affecting the Harwich and Dovercourt area and, more particularly, what has come to be known as stage 2 of the Dovercourt by-pass, because of the vast increase in this area over the last few years of traffic in exports throughout the world.

Before I get down to the details of the problem I feel I must say a word about the national problem concerning the financing of transport, be it roads, railways or airports, because this affects the speed with which local projects can be carried out. If we had had the same rate of growth in each of the last five years as we had over the average of the 13 years of the Conservative Government the national income would be £2,800 million more than it is today, and obviously a much bigger proportion could have been allotted to the county council for road building, and the county council would not have been faced with a 50 per cent. cut, in real terms, of the annual increase in the rate support grant. This has led to cheeseparing economies.

It is obvious that road repairs are having to be delayed, and all the indications are that there will be a considerable cut by the Government in specific capital grants towards principal road schemes in Essex, and a considerable cutback in loan consent for non-principal road improvement schemes.

Is the Minister in a position to say how much these cutbacks will be? More particularly, every delay tactic that can be seems to be being employed over what to the inhabitants of Dovercourt and Harwich is a project which is of most vital importance, their bypass to the Navy Yard at Harwich. Soon after the establishment of the port at Navy Yard I raised this with the Chairman of the Essex County Council, in 1963, and established the point that this by-pass was a vital project, being a road to the rapidly expanding port. I underlined then that this should be given the utmost priority. Alas, since then this project has had a sad and sorry and continuing story of delay and procrastination, of procrastination and delay.

What has been the cause? Perhaps the Minister will give us an explanation. Or is it that the real cause is shortage of funds and the fact that over the last five years we have not been making enough nationally? And is it not a fact that Essex has not been getting a fair share of the national funds for its road building projects such as the roads to the ports, be they Harwich, Parkeston or Tilbury? Could the Minister say what has been the allocation of funds for highways in Essex over the last five years at the 1964 value of the £ either through specific capital grants or in loan consent? Could he say how that compares with what has been done elsewhere? Has account been taken of the fact that Essex is a rapidly growing area?

Has the Minister taken account of the fact that the road from Colchester to Harwich, according to the Green Paper, "Roads of the Future", issued by the Ministry of Transport this year, is to be a focal point of a motorway coming from the Midlands to Harwich? Naturally I welcome this, for I have pressed for it long enough, but the Green Paper says: Plans for inter-urban roads must make allowances for the increasing need for road improvements in urban areas". In view of this, I claim that the utmost priority should be given to the road from Colchester to Harwich, including the bypass to Parkeston and Harwich Navy Yard, particularly as not only transport container traffic, but an increasing number of cars and passenger traffic arrive at these ports each year. Last year, more than one million tons of cargo and 100,000 passengers passed through these ports. It is obvious that this area is to be a focal point not only of a motorway from the Midlands, but of a growing industrial complex trading ever more closely with the Continent.

Delay in completing both stages of the bypass as soon as possible is making planners forget the potentialities of the area. It is certainly preventing the development of an ideal industrial estate on the mud flats at Bathside. This is why I think that it is part of the cause of the grave mistake of placing a prison at Wrabness rather than develop a natural industrial site with great potential.

What is the intention of British Railways with the site at Bathside known as the mud flats? Are British Railways prepared to sell it, or do they now need it for their own expansion plans at Parkeston. If the mud flats were sold, would i.d.c.s be available for industrial sites? I estimate that about £500,000 for each stage of the by-pass will be needed. This may seem a large sum of money at this time, but is it not small in relation to the long-term potential of what is bound to be an expanding port complex?

I hope that this afternoon we shall hear that delay and procrastination have ended. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not tell me this afternoon as he wrote to me on 27th February that he is awaiting planning approval from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Has planning permission now been given for stage 2 of this road? Why is the Ministry asking for more information before stage 2 is included in the urban preparation list? Has not application already been made for this by the Essex County Council? Why is the Ministry still asking for details?

When can the long suffering inhabitants of Harwich and Dovercourt expect to get their bypass and stop having to endure the ceaseless rumble of transport container traffic not only through their shopping centre, but in their homes all day and night long? Casualty figures underline the importance of something being done. Since 1965, there have been 15 fatal casualties on the road from Colchester to Harwich and 229 people have been injured. Has a preliminary assessment of the economic cost benefit of the scheme, which was asked for months ago by the Ministry, been completed? Is the Minister in a position to give these facts today?

Because of all the proscrastination in the past, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will now say that both sections of the by-pass are now in the same stage of preparation. But what other projects in Essex have financial priority over this road? Surely it is Government policy to give priority to roads to the ports. When will a date be given for the start of stage 1 and stage 2 of the by-pass? It is said that where there is a will, there is a way. I hope that after this debate it will at long last be shown that there is a will to get on with this task as quickly and as speedily as possible.

I do not believe that the requirements of Essex are properly accepted by the Ministry. We have a more rapidly expanding population than any other county in the United Kingdom. We have a coastal recreation zone to which most of North London is drawn. We have the major port of Tilbury now greatly expanding and the probability that the third London Airport will be established at Foulness. We have the rapidly expanding ports of Parkeston and Harwich, and if these communications are increased more rapidly, then these ports would expand more quickly. We have increasing traffic from the Midlands, and we have the Dartford Tunnel which carries the major flow of cross-Thames traffic. We have the big industrial area along the north bank of the Thames.

I am sure that the Minister should be making a bigger allocation of funds for major schemes in Essex. I am certain that the reason for the delay is because these funds are now so limited in relation to requirements. I ask the Minister to look most carefully at the requirements in this vital area of the country if we are to go ahead and get growth in our economy. I believe that there has been delay and procrastination because of the failure to allocate sufficient Government funds for proper industrial development in Essex, and particularly the Harwich area.

I ask him to look most carefully at the importance of stage 2 and the possibilities of Dovercourt and Harwich. We must get ahead of events and not always be pushed by them. Harwich is a growing and enterprising port, and it should be given far more of its fair share of available funds.

I hope that at long last the Minister will show some understanding of the difficulties that Harwich and Dovercourt have had to suffer because of the slowness in getting the new by-pass, particularly since 1964, when this became a class of first priority because of the establishment of the navy yard at Harwich. I hope that today we shall hear a powerful reply from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

3.43 p.m.

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

I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the detail and range of the subjects he has raised clearly, in the short time available, I cannot deal with them all in detail. I will attempt to deal with them briefly, and I am sure that we will continue the mammoth correspondence which the hon. Gentleman and I seem to keep up with one another.

Turning first to roads the hon. Gentleman has in the past, and again today, pressed upon us the importance of a good road link betwen the Midlands and the port of Harwich. My right hon. Friend's recent Green Paper "Roads for the Future" includes amongst its proposals a strategic East/West link between Harwich and the M1. The strategic routes, of which this is an example, have been planned not only to meet future inter-urban traffic needs but also to take account of the requirements of industrialists and exporters and to meet the social and economic needs of the regions. The proposed Harwich link is a blending of all three of these major considerations.

We fully accept the importance of improving communications between North-East Essex, particularly the rapidly growing port of Harwich, and the industrial Midlands and the North. It is for this reason that we are proposing the construction of a high-standard dual-carriageway route from M1 to the coast at Harwich. Whether it should be a motorway and where exactly the road would run are not matters which I can settle today: the precise standard of the work its timing and the actual alignment will be determined as detailed planning proceeds.

I ought in fairness to point out that, as with all proposals in the Green Paper, the suggested new route could be modified as a result of the public representations which my right hon. Friend has invited and which he has undertaken to take fully into account before deciding on the final form of the strategic network—probably at the end of the year. But I can say that the Ministry's present assessment, based on a wide range of facts and estimates, leads us to the conclusion that a high-standard route from the Midlands to North-East Essex is likely to be an essential link in the country's highway network for the 1970's and early 1980's.

There are, of course, a significant number of other road schemes designed to benefit North-East Essex which are already in the programme or in preparation. I have not time to deal with each of these schemes, but the hon. Gentleman particularly referred to the Dovercourt by-pass, and I would therefore like to say a little about this proposal. The by-pass will be a principal road, for which the Essex County Councill will be the highway authority; as such, it will qualify for a 75 per cent. grant from us. Stage I will form a new approach to Parkeston Quay, and is estimated to cost £320,000. This section was included in the principal road preparation list announced on 10th May, 1967. It will be considered for a place in the firm programme according to its state of readiness, cost and relative priority, and the resources available for the road programme from year to year. All I can say at the moment is that schemes now in the preparation list are expected to be ready to start within the period from 1972 onwards. Stage II of the by-pass will be an extension from Parkeston Quay to Harwich Docks. The county council is considering possible lines for this section; we are awaiting a report from it to enable us to give further consideration to the inclusion of Stage II in the preparation list. In this consideration, we shall take full account of the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman today, as well as the wish of the county council that the construction of the by-pass should be concurrent with, or follow immediately, the improvement of A604 for eight miles from Elmstead market to west of Ramsey which is expected to start around 1971.

The hon. Member has asked me for the highway expenditure figures for Essex over the past five years. I will not take up the time of the House by giving these now, but I shall be pleased to give them to the hon. Member after this debate. Suffice for now to say that, over the past five years, a total of £16,675,000 has been spent on trunk and Class I or principal roads in Essex.

Speaking of expenditure on roads, it gets a little tiresome to hear this constant talk of cuts when, this year, we are spending twice what the hon. Gentleman's Government spent in their last year of office and six times what they spent 10 years ago.

Mr. Ridsdale

Do these prices take devaluation into account?

Mr. Brown

The figure that I have quoted is the actual figure of expenditure.

The hon. Gentleman referred also to the development potential of the Bathside mud flats, and the enhancement of this potential which would follow the construction of the Dovercourt By-pass. We know his keen interest in port development in this area. I am sure he will admit that the Government's record in relation to port investment is impressive. From an average rate of £18 million per annum in the years before 1964, we have boosted it to over £45 million per annum, and it is likely to continue at this rate for some years. But we could not encourage purely speculative investment in port facilities. It is for British Rail in the exercise of their commercial judgment to assess probable demand and, in the light of their assessment, to decide when and how to develop the Bathside land. For our part we shall be ready to consider any firm proposal which British Rail wish to put to us.

Perhaps I may now say a word or two about railway services. Bad time-keeping must always give rise to concern, but this is primarily a management matter for British Rail. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with them, and I understand that time-keeping for example on the 0720 train from Clacton, about which particular concern was expressed, has improved.

So far as the level of service is concerned, we are well aware of the importance of rail services in rural areas, and my right hon. Friend bears this very much in mind in reaching decisions on applications for grant or proposals for closure. Indeed, it is because we are concerned that we have made provision for the payment of grants in respect of those services which the community needs but which do not pay their way. British Rail are also constantly seeking to improve the service, and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman—indeed, he may already know this—that they have now re-instated in the time-table the 10.50 train from Ipswich to Parkeston and the 16.15 train from Ipswich to Harwich. But in all these matters we must have regard to the need for British Rail to pay their way, and to the need to see that the community gets value for the money given in grant.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of bus fares. My right hon. Friend has been active in promoting means to assist the bus companies to minimise the impact of rising costs upon fares. I need mention only the grants in relief of fuel duty; the direct grants of 25 per cent. towards the cost of new buses of an approved type suitable for one man operation; the empowering of local authorities to give financial assistance to rural bus services, half of which the local authorities can get back from us; and our grants of 25 per cent. towards expediture on structures such as bus stations. There is full refund of S.E.T. The excise duty on a double-decker bus is only £41 against £25 per annum for a private car and £229 for a heavy lorry.

I am sure that what I have said indicates to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are clearly anxious to do all that they can to strengthen and further improve public passenger transport, particularly in rural areas.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity to explain some of the steps which the Government have taken which will be of benefit to those who travel in North-East Essex.