HC Deb 07 August 1972 vol 842 cc1449-60

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

It is perhaps poetic justice that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who had to sit through a debate on Somerset roads in the early hours of Thursday morning before debating a legal matter, has perhaps been able to get a little of his own back tonight.

It does not seem many hours since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment came to debate on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill the problems of Bristol's traffic. My hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) are here tonight, as well as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate the very grave difficulties we are all experiencing in our part of the country.

Because of the lack of HANSARD and the early hour at which the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill took place, I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I briefly touch on the problems of the M5 bridge. I repeat that I welcome the decision to open the part of the motorway from Gordano to Edithmead when it is completed. I fully accept that this will cause some problems for certain parts of the Long Ashton rural district, but I am certain that it is the right decision.

Unhappily, I cannot say that anyone is pleased by the news that the M5 Avonmouth bridge will not be open before the end of next summer. I merely quote briefly from a report in the Western Daily Press of the day after the debate, which said: The West was officially doomed yesterday to holiday traffic chaos again next year. The Government confirmed that the M5 Avonmouth bridge will not be open until after next summer. An editorial in the same newspaper asked: Are we really surprised to hear that the M5 Avonmouth bridge will not be open for next summer? Of course we are not. We expected it. The surprise will come when it does open, and suddenly traffic flows swiftly around Bristol instead of crawling through it. My hon. Friend has explained the difficulties his Department faces in completing the bridge, but once again may we urge on him the extra working and double shifts, and consideration of the possibility even of a single track Bailey bridge. The Automobile Association has suggested that ferries might be used. Let us examine every possible alternative, because there will be incredible chaos next summer if nothing can be done.

My hon. Friend also touched on the question of road improvements in the area. I mentioned to him my own ideas on that.

There is in addition the question of the traffic flow through Bristol. There is more than one crossing of the river Avon that can be used instead of the M5 Avonmouth bridge. There is the Clifton suspension bridge, and there are the other, low-level bridges. I am sure that the secret will be to see that at the height of the traffic flow all those routes are used equally. There is nothing more frustrating than to be stuck in a jam on the Portway while the traffic is flowing across the Clifton bridge. If there can be liaison between these various routes, a great deal of trouble will be avoided.

I repeat also the plea to see that the junctions on the A38 are kept reasonably free for local people. They are proving to be almost an impassable barrier at weekends. If police attention is needed, I hope that my hon. Friend will urge those responsible to see that the junctions are manned.

I turn to the specific problem of the expenditure on roads in Somerset and in particular the north of Somerset, a rapidly expanding area. People are moving south from Bristol and other parts of the country to settle in our part of the world. It is perhaps this, among other things, that has created the problem. Therefore, I took a look at some of the financial statistics. They go up to 1970 only, as the 1971 figures have not yet been published.

For comparison with the county of Somerset, I took my old county of Worcestershire, where I lived and was brought up, and Northumberland, in the North. I appreciate that it is possible to be selective on both sides of the argument, but I picked out these counties at random.

I compare first the expenditure on trunk roads in the three counties. In this respect, Somerset comes out quite well with a figure of £25 per mile against £11 for Worcestershire and £22.3 for Northumberland. The figures for maintenance per mile of trunk roads are, Somerset £1,797 per mile, Worcestershire £7,810 and Northumberland £2,187. The population of Somerset is 600,000, of Worcestershire 459,000 and of Northumberland 505,000 so they are not so dissimilar. But if anything Worcestershire with a lower population, and lower number of vehicles than Somerset, and a lower mileage of road, still spends substantially more on a per mile basis on maintenance.

In the case of principal roads the figures are even more startling. Somerset is spending on new road construction for principal roads £1,100 per mile, Worcestershire £9,600 and Northumberland £15,100. We have 4,171 miles of small road in Somerset and the spending on these per mile is £103 in Somerset, £390 in Worcestershire and £370 in Northumberland. One has to look further into the deep West Country before one finds other counties spending less per mile than Somerset.

No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say that this is to a large extent not a matter for his Department, but the time has come when it has to be. We have to see what can be done to do something about the disastrous roads in the West Country, particularly in Somerset. The county surveyor is reported to have said that Somerset's roads are up to standard. His standard and mine are not the same. Our road system in Somerset falls substantially behind the standard to which I have been accustomed in the Midlands. I hope that it will be possible for my hon. Friend to divert Government funds to assist with the road system in the West.

I appreciate that the question of economic assessment and return on the nation's capital is involved. I have a suspicion, although I have no grounds for it, that the economic assessment for tourist traffic has not been done on the same basis as the economic assessment for industrial and other traffic. But the tourist's car and very often his caravan take up as much or more space on our roads, clogging local business and other interests, and ought to be treated on the same basis. If we are to expand the tourist industry in the West, which we intend to do, and to which the Government give their blessing and money, we must do something about the roads. The question of economic assessment and economic return must be looked at.

I turn now to two particularly local problems—two bypasses, each of which will cost over £l million, the bulk of which will clearly have to come from the Government. The first and more important is at Banwell and Winscombe, two small villages both of which have substantially outgrown their original planned size. Their main streets date from the horse and buggy age. The very fact of their attractiveness has encouraged people to develop in them and it means that many people pass through them on their way to work in Weston and other places. In Banwell, the situation is aggravated because it is on a very steep hill. Despite constant pressure from the parish council, from Axbridge Rural District Council, myself and others, we seem unable to get the county council to place this work on any priority list. I hope that when he visits the area my hon. Friend will attempt to pass through Ban-well on a busy day, because he will then see immediately the necessity for a bypass. The bypass of the village will have the advantage also of bypassing Winscombe which has had to take the drastic step of controlling its parking and has temporarily at least improved the traffic flow, although many local people find the restrictions irksome. The problem in Yatton is the same. A small main street is quite inadequate to take the heavy flow of traffic.

I apologise for galloping a little, but I know that my hon. Friends would like to intervene and there is much ground to cover.

I turn to the borough of Weston-super-Mare and its major road pattern. These are matters wholly falling within the province of the Minister although it is true that the allocation of funds comes through the Somerset County Council. The county council is perfectly happy and ready to give the schemes I am talking about priority if the money is available from central Government. My hon. Friend's predecessor made a statement to the effect that £80 million would be available for urban road development in towns where transportation studies have been made. My hon. Friend will know that Weston has recently completed its transportation study. We are anxious to get at least our fair share of this money.

I quote from a letter which confirms the county council's view in which it is said that it is: …quite clear that the first priority is Locking Moor Bridges followed by the Southern Distributor Road. It goes on to say that it is true: that insufficient allocations have been made either, in the programme or the preparation list, to cover these two schemes together, and that the Council Council's application for the inclusion in the preparation list of a further stage of the network was intended to provide a balancing figure to enable these two named schemes to proceed. My hon. Friend's predecessor wrote to me saying that the Locking Moor construction of new bridges over the railway was in the firm programme but he would not confirm the other roadworks. I am extremely anxious that both the road known as the Southern Distributor Road and the other part of the road which will go eventually on to the motorway should be completed. It would be common sense and good business practice if the Government were to consider investing in these three schemes all at once. They are all inter-related and inter-connected and will, I am sure, give a good economic return.

With the expenditure on roads, particularly in other parts of the world, I hope my hon. Friend will consider that these get their proper priority. I hope that having rushed through these problems, I have shown the Minister how seriously we view our traffic problem in the South-West, particularly North Somerset. I know the Minister has already taken a personal interest in the problem. I hope that he will turn that interest into substantial action.

1.23 a.m.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for his diligence in yet again bringing this important problem before the House. It is a measure of the anxiety that we feel in Somerset over the situation. At the same time, that anxiety should not disguise our appreciation for what the Minister has done in the short time he has been in post in showing a real interest in our problems, which is appreciated by us all. We also appreciate the work of the Department in what it has done for the schemes in Highbridge and Bridgwater to improve the traffic flow—not all of which have worked. It has shown a readiness to reconsider the problem and to adapt itself.

What it is trying to do at present is a thankless task because it is trying to put a quart into a pint pot. This is a short-term problem. We recognise the tremendous amount of money being spent in Somerset which in the long term will make a great improvement.

I have made the point earlier about the need for the secondary road system. May I concentrate on two points directly connected with the motorway. In the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on Bristol traffic problems during the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill it was mentioned that the Edithmead-Dunball section would be ready in August, 1973. This was a serious announcement because that is months late and means that Highbridge, which was promised that it would not be faced with a further summer of heavy traffic, will face this burden for another summer. It was hoped that the improvement would be ready before next summer. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would look on this as a matter of great importance.

A further matter on which we should like an assurance concerns the bridge over the Avon. I am equally concerned with the major engineering project arising from the construction of a viaduct at Hunt-worth. I should appreciate an assurance that that is on time.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen (Wells)

I also am indebted—as will be many thousands of people, not only our constituents but from all over the country—to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for raising this matter yet again. Anyone who saw the jams and the queues in my constituency last weekend will know how appropriate is the timing of this debate. I am appalled to learn that the M4-M5 bridge will not be open until yet another summer tourist season has passed. I do not think that the jams, delays and the frustrations involved for those going to the South-West are fully understood by those who plan our road networks.

Without the motorway being opened right through the tourists and visitors have to fall back on the old faithfuls—the A30 and the A303—to the South-West, both of which, in part, run through my constituency. Some lengths of those roads are only 24 ft. wide. One of the Highways Acts of last century laid down 24 ft. as being the right width. We have not progressed much since then. We are earnest in our belief that something must be done quickly to improve the situation. We know that we have a Minister who is determined to do what he can, and we congratulate him on what he has done, but I hope that he will do all he can to hurry up the M4-M5 bridge.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

In bridge construction, major engineering work should be got on with well ahead, so that road construction can follow. I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Torn King). I ask my hon. Friend to make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has nothing to do with this delay. He has no ministerial responsibility in the matter. We hear a lot of talk in the Press about his slowness to act, but it is nothing to do with him.

Not long ago we had a debate at four o'clock in the morning. Without HANSARD, some newspapers did not know what was said.

Whichever way the streams of traffic are diverted through Bristol they will converge at the top of Rownham Hill. Perhaps my hon. Friend can think of a way in which a motorway can be got through there expeditiously. If we cannot have a motorway bridge for the 1973 summer, will we have it for 1974? I do not think we can have an answer on that now. If we are not sure about 1974, we must have a temporary low level bridge further up the Avon from Avonmouth going right across the Avon. The railway line there is little used. Will my hon. Friend consider that, if we cannot have our bridge in good time?

1.29 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for this interesting and timely debate, both on the Avon Bridge and the road problems of North Somerset. I can tell him and also my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that in the Department we certainly understand the real problems that will be caused, and are being caused, by the fact that this bridge is not in operation. I can give them the firm assurance that we are concerned that this will cause a great deal of hardship to local residents. I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, who talked about tourists and visitors; I stress the problems of local residents and industry, which we must not forget; it is not just a tourists' or visitors' problem.

I shall not rehearse all the arguments about the Avon Bridge that we had the other morning, except to say that we have looked at the question of ferries. There are real problems of navigation, and particularly of congestion. Even if we could solve all the problems of access, and the tidal and navigational difficulties, the number of cars carried on a ferry is limited, and there would be problems of congestion, even with access down to the ferry. Therefore, regretfully, although this possible solution has been considered, we have had to rule it out. I can assure my hon. Friend—and this is a vital point which I stressed the other morning—that there will be the maximum flexibility in the traffic flows between traffic using Portway and that using the Clifton Bridge. It is essential that there is not an enormous build-up on one route while the other route is under capacity. We want to achieve a balance, and we are ensuring that signing and police and traffic control in the area will bring the balance and flexibility which we all seek in a temporary amelioration of the problem.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West that this has nothing to do with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries. If anyone should take the rap on this bridge, I am happy to take it. I note what he has said about ensuring that major engineering works, which could be the key to the whole question, are not allowed to get into this situation again. Nobody could have foreseen the box girder problems. My hon. Friend has raised a valid point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised a number of points which I should like to deal with. First, he referred to the weighting given to tourist traffic. The question of the economic evaluation of roads is pretty complicated. It is more sophisticated than my hon. Friend indicated. Basically there is some truth in what he says. But when we are looking at the economic evaluation, as a starting point all vehicles are counted equally. Vehicles are normally counted on an August day, and there are formulae for converting, say, February or April figures or figures for some other month into August totals.

Nevertheless, it is true that non-work trips are valued at a quarter of work trips. I could spend a great deal of time going into the whys and wherefores of evaluation. Suffice it to say—and this is an objective assessment based on detailed research carried out over the whole country—that in working out the economic evaluation, we bear in mind that non-work trips are valued at a quarter of work trips. As against that there is the balancing factor that the vehicle occupancy for non-work trips is normally 1.9 as against 1.3 for work trips. That means that in an area where there are many more non-work trips compared with work trips one could argue that this economically vitiated against that area in its road programme.

It is more positive and perhaps more helpful if I tell the House and my hon. Friend's constituents and other people in North Somerset that we have a massive programme under way for road expenditure in this area. Total road expenditure, including maintenance, by central Government and local authorities for the last few years is as follows: in 1967–68, £5,381,000; in 1968–69, £7,501,000; in 1969–70, £7,371,000; in 1970–71, £5,953,000; and in 1971–72 the provisional figure is £10,556,000. The figures for the first four years relate to the geographical area which includes Bath, and the last year's figure relates to the administrative area of Somerset County Council.

Perhaps what is even more important and dramatic is that, looking ahead, about £60 million worth of major trunk. motorway and principal road schemes are now under construction, a further £17 million worth are soundly programmed but not yet started, and £73 million worth are in preparation—a total of about £150 million worth of work. In addition, many small road improvements are continually in hand in the county. The figure of £150 million for work in hand or planned compares with £4,300 million for England as a whole. So, in comparative terms, the County of Somerset has about 3½ per cent. of the English total, yet its population is only about 1½ per cent. of the population of England and Wales.

In the past two or three years we have seen a dramatic switch, not only in the South-West as a whole but in Somerset. in road schemes under construction, in the firm preparation pool or planned. It is, of course, my job, and it is the job of the Department, and of the local authorities concerned, to see that as fast as possible the roads planned are turned into realities.

A word or two about Weston. The position is largely as outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare by my predecessor in his letter of 7th January last. The situation is this. First of all, it is not quite true that the Land Use Transport Study is completed. There are one or two sections to complete, and this is in fact holding up, to an extent, the progressing of these roads. But the Locking Moor Road scheme is in the firm road programme and the county council expects to submit a firm programme report on it early next year. This means a possible start two years or so later. No detailed design work can begin till the firm programme report has been submitted. I understand that the county itself is waiting for the Weston L.U.T.S. to be completed.

As for the extension to the M5 motorway, this scheme is largely in the same position: it is in the preparation list. Of course, there was the other scheme my hon. Friend mentioned. This was not accepted in the preparation list. It was a scheme costing rather more than £2 million. Again, I believe that when the transport study has been completed the county will consider what it wishes to do with this scheme.

My hon. Friend mentioned the problems at Yatton and Banwell and I am not trying to pass the buck, but at Banwell we have not yet received an approach from the county regarding a grant for a bypass. If the county council does put up a scheme, while I could not tonight prejudge it, and say whether it would be accepted or not, it would be carefully looked at and we shall bear in mind all the things my hon. Friend has said. This must be a matter for the county, and it is for the county to put up a suggestion.

The B3133 at Yatton is a non-principal road and, therefore, not eligible for grant, or for the Department. It is a matter for the county itself in its allocations. As this is a non-principal road we in the Department have no standing in the matter.

I have mentioned the enormous amount of money which is in the programme for Somerset roads over the next few years. We are very conscious, having said that, that there are problems caused by the lack of an Avon bridge and of the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater in connection with the extension of the M5. I promise him I will give consideration to the matters he referred to and write to him in the near future. I appreciate that at Bridgwater and Highbury these bypasses, which is what the extension would be, should be proceeded with sooner rather than later and certainly before the summer peaks build up. I cannot give an answer tonight, but as we have taken a decision to open the motorway, no matter what happens to the Avon bridge, we can get on with this plan before the summer peak.

In the meantime, although conditions, I am afraid, will be difficult next year, I hope that my hon. Friend will see, from the figures I have given, that perhaps at long last, and under this Government, Somerset will get a good deal and a fair deal for its road programme.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Will my hon. Friend answer one question? To help him enjoy his well deserved holiday will he read what has been said about the Avon?

Mr. Speed

I shall be delighted.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirty-nine minutes to Two o'clock.