§ 11.29 p.m.
§ Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)The last Parliament had one distinct advantage over the present Parliament, in that the hon. Member for North Fylde, being then a Government Whip, was unable to speak except to move the Adjournment of the House. Alas, those halcyon days are past.
Other hon. Members left the Chamber swiftly as soon as I rose to make what is virtually a maiden speech after four years of silence. But I propose to bear in mind what I call Clegg's Laws of Listening, which I formulated after sitting for many a weary hour on the Government Front Bench and keeping silent, as you have to do in your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first of those laws is that the second half of any speech appears to be twice as long as the first, and the second law is that the enjoyment of a speech is in inverse proportion to its length. I shall try my best to bear those two laws in mind when I speak.
The problems I have chosen to raise in the debate affect the port and town of Fleetwood in my constituency. They are very much the problems of success and not of failure. Not many years ago many people said that the port of Fleetwood was finished and that Fleetwood as a town was on the way down. That is quite contrary to what has happened over the past few years. From about 1970 onwards the port and the town have flourished.
The change started with the reinstatement of the Isle of Man steamer service for summer travellers to the Isle of Man from the port. Then we had the expansion of industry on the town's estate, after the adoption of Fylde as an assisted area, and next we had remarkable development in the port itself.
First, we had the new Jubilee Quay for the inshore fishermen, and in the space of one year alone the inshore fleet doubled. We have also embarked on the modernisation of the fish dock. Work on that has just about started, and it will mean a much better dock for the use of the fishing fleet in future.
In addition, we have had a development of the dry cargo side of Fleetwood, which has been remarkable. I pay tribute 1056 to the British Transport Docks Board, and particularly to our local manager, who has played such a great part in the operation. From being a port that handled comparatively little dry cargo, we are now handling more and more through lift-off facilities. Roll-on, roll-off facilities are being made available. A Private Bill has come to Parliament from the board to provide even more facilities in the port. This is very good for the town and the port of Fleetwood. We have very good labour relations.
I am pleased that the board has made an effort to develop our port, but it produces problems, as success often does. One problem is the flow of traffic to the port, which has to come through some winding country lanes from the present M6. When the Blackpool spur of the M6 is built, it will still have to come through country lanes. The part I am concerned with is a stretch between the end of Amounderness Way and the boundaries of Fleetwood.
I have been given figures by the board of the flow of traffic along the stretch of road which goes through Thornton Cleveleys in my constituency, quite a heavily populated area. In 1973 the estimated number of road vehicle journeys—vehicles using the port, and not light traffic—was 61,630. This year that figure will increase to about 73,000. but I am told that in 1975—and this is a revised figure I received over the weekend—the estimated number of road vehicle journeys is about 200,000.
All this is in addition to the normal traffic to the port, which includes holiday traffic going to Fleetwood itself and to Thornton Cleveleys—both holiday resorts —private motorists going to the Isle of Man steamer and other heavy vehicles which use the same route for the factories that ICI has in the area and for the power station. It is true that we have a railway system for freight which still goes to part of Fleetwood but it does not go into the port itself. It stops short at the power station and the ICI sidings. One can see little hope of relief in that respect.
The impact upon Thornton Cleveleys already is quite intense. I want to quote what the local newspaper had to say about the stretch of the Fleetwood Road which is now used by these heavy vehicles. I travel along it frequently and 1057 it looks something like the Menin Road in the First World War—as though it had been shelled—because, in addition to all the problems of traffic, we have had the construction of a major sewerage scheme and a drainage scheme, and the road is upset.
The Thornton Cleveleys Times of 22nd March had the headline:
'It's Murder', says traffic sufferersand it went on:Walls and chimneys cracking, tins of food jumping off shop shelves, beds shaking and pictures moving on the walls were just a few complaints from up-in-arms residents this week complaining about heavy traffic using the Fleetwood Road, Thornton.One of my constituents said that it was almost like living in a house with a poltergeist, because everything was always on the move.There is also the problem of safety—of heavy vehicles using a narrow road lined for the most part on both sides with houses.
The Minister is probably well aware of this problem because it has been put to the Ministry before. What is needed most of all to effect relief is the completion of the Thornton Cleveleys bypass, which would take traffic from the end of Amounderness Way and take it through Copse Road, Fleetwood. This would have an immediate effect if it were constructed as quickly as possible. I have been in touch with the Lancashire County Council—the road authority—and with the new Wyre District Council, which was inaugurated today, and to which I wish the best of good will. Both councils give very high priority to this project.
I ask the Minister two specic questions: first, has there been any delay in letting the Lancashire County Council know the full material it needs for its transport policies and programmes, and, secondly, when will it be possible for the Department to let the county council know how much money it will have available?—because I understand that in this case these priorities are set more by the Lancashire County Council than by the Department itself.
The key factor for the county council is: when will it know how much money is available so that it can allocate priority to this road? The needs for this road are incontestable. They are two- 1058 fold. First, there is the need to look after the safety of the people using the road at the moment and to look after the lives of the people living along the road, in the environmental sense, and, secondly, the need for new communications, especially with the new spur of the M6, which is essential if the port of Fleetwood is to develop, remain properous, and become more prosperous. I press the urgency of these items on the Minister and his Department. I urge them to do all they can to give us this relief road as soon as possible.
I now turn to some other problems of the port which are not the direct responsibility of the hon. Member—I have informed him of these—but which he could well pass on particularly to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agri. culture, Fisheries and Food.
The Fleetwood fishing fleet is under some difficulty in that it must be kept fully modernised. It is easy for ports that do not have modernised fishing fleets to fall by the wayside. For example, Milford Haven is now virtually finished as a fishing port. That leaves Fleetwood as the major deep-sea port on the west of the country, including Wales and Scotland.
Fleetwood has a strong desire to keep its fishing fleet up to date. It has that desire for more than one reason. Deep-sea fishing is a highly dangerous, skilled and arduous job. If any job was referable as a special case involving hardship at work, the trawlermen's job would surely come into that category. Fleetwood wants to send its men to sea in the best equipped ships that it is possible to have. I ask that consideration be given to reinstating the grant which was obtainable for the building of fishing vessels.
At the same time I ask that consideration be given to the impact of oil fuel costs on the fishing industry. If it were possible to get back such costs from the market there would be little or no problem, but I doubt whether that is possible. I am not asking specifically for the refunding of such costs, but I ask that the matter be kept under surveillance. At one time there was an operational subsidy, but that is no longer in force. Fuel costs are having an impact on the fishing industry, and I ask that the matter be kept under review. Unless there is a proper return from the 1059 market or some sort of subsidy it is possible that fishing will become unprofitable. That would be a dangerous situation.
Finally, I draw attention to the problem of fishing limits. Fleetwood vessels are still fishing around Iceland, but that fishing will come to an end. The Law of the Sea Conference at Caracas will take place this year, and many countries are saying that they are determined to obtain wider fishing limits. If that is so, the fishermen of Fleetwood will want their share of any new limits that the conference hands out. We must have fishing grounds to enable the fleet to live.
The fishermen have suggested a limit of 200 miles. If other countries get wider limits, that is what Fleetwood will want. We shall have to bear in mind the points of view which are expressed at the conference, but if other countries leave the conference with wider limits there will be a tremendous reaction in this country right around the coast if similar limits are not granted to our fishermen.
I have referred to some of the problems in the port and town of Fleetwood. Happily, they are problems which arise from success and not from failure.
§ 11.44 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael)I am pleased to be able to welcome what the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) called his maiden speech. We all know that it is a maiden speech after an enforced silence as a result of his duties as a Government Whip.
I sympathised with the hon. Gentleman to some extent when he said that he listened for many weary hours to Adjournment debates as my Department tends to get a larger share of Adjournment debates than most Departments. Certainly you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must be one of the best informed of hon. Members. Adjournment debates are certainly good for an Under-Secretary of State's geography.
The hon. Gentleman put the case for his constituency most succinctly. In the short time at his disposal, he brought out perhaps more points than I shall be able to deal with. However, he can be assured 1060 that a note has been taken of all the points he raised.
Before I deal with the main points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I should like to say a few words about the port of Fleetwood itself—perhaps from a slightly different angle from that outlined by the hon. Gentleman, although I agree with him that Fleetwood is a fast growing and expanding port. In 1973 the total traffic handled at Fleetwood was 497,000 tonnes. This compares with 335,000 tonnes in 1972, an increase of little less than 50 per cent. Future prospective developments at the port suggest that even higher levels of traffic will be achieved when these are completed and in use.
With a view in particular to the Irish traffic, the British Transport Docks Board is currently constructing a new roll-on, roll-off berth at the port on the south side of, and near to, the existing jetties in Fleetwood harbour. Fleetwood has been selected for new services because of the freedom for vessels to operate on timed sailings, free of restrictions arising from depths of water or the need to enter enclosed docks. Furthermore, this year work has begun on a scheme for the renewal and modernisation of fish landing and processing facilities at the fish market. Included in the scheme is the reconstruction of the east entrance jetty. This is a much-needed project, and, in view of its importance to the fishing industry, the Government are giving a 60 per cent. grant towards the cost under the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1955.
Turning to the future, the board is currently promoting in Parliament a Private Bill in which powers are being sought for the construction of three roll-on, roll-off berths, reclamation of tidal land and road access on the eastern side of the tidal harbour. These berths will also be available to serve the Irish traffic. It will be clear from what I have said that the board regards the port of Fleetwood as having the potential for considerable expansion.
Having set the scene so far as the port is concerned, I will now try to deal with the main points raised by the hon. Member. As for the problems of road access to Fleetwood, perhaps I should first sketch the general background to the road programme which the present Government have inherited. Its broad 1061 aims are to promote growth and secure environmental improvements by linking the important ports and airports with the major centres of population and the less prosperous regions and by diverting long-distance traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles, from a large number of towns and villages, including historic towns. A number of responsibilities are laid down in the programme we inherited.
In general, these broad objectives have the support of the new Government, but the programme will have to reflect fully the Secretary of State's views on what is now the correct order of priorities. Some of the options being considered are whether resources should be concentrated on building a network of routes which would be particularly suitable for use by heavier lorries and whether road building standards should be revised to reflect more closely existing needs.
The economic importance of links to the ports must not be forgotten, but it is unrealistic to expect that funds will allow the provision of direct trunk access links to all ports. Most of us are probably ambivalent towards heavy lorries we welcome the cheaper distribution of goods which larger loads make possible, but we want this without having to pay the price of sharing our roads with them, not least in the built-up areas in which we live. For some this is indeed a heavy burden, and I understand and sympathise with the feelings of those whose daily lives are disrupted by the movement of heavy vehicles. There is nothing between the hon. Member and myself on that score. This problem arises in many parts of the country, although naturally the hon. Gentleman is much more concerned about it in his part. I have great sympathy with what was said in the newspaper from which he read.
The remedy appears to be deceptively simply. We should build other roads on to which very large vehicles could be diverted. But such measures are essentially long term, and each proposal for bypassing built-up areas and thus providing relief for those living in them has to be carefully weighed and balanced against the resources available for such works.
Let me now turn to the particular problem with which the hon. Member 1062 is concerned. The port of Fleetwood is about 20 miles from the major national route network in the shape of the M6. Moreover, the completion of the construction of the M55 about one year from now will bring the port to within about 10 miles of the network. So, in general, Fleetwood will not be ill-served by the national road network. The problem is a much more local one and lies in the principal road system covering that intervening 10 miles.
But this part of the problem has not been neglected. The Lancashire County Council, as highway authority, has improved the A585 between Kirkham and Singleton. It has provided two sections of a Thornton Cleveleys bypass, one to to the south, from Skippool to the outskirts of Thornton Cleveleys, and one in Fleetwood itself. There is no disagreement about the need to link these two sections. This would clearly benefit both commercial transport and the harassed citizens along the intervening route which the A585 and B5268 at present provide for want of any other.
The decision how soon this can be done will rest very much with the new Lancashire County Council. I should mislead the hon. Member if I were to lead him to expect the road to be built during 1974–75. I cannot be sure how long the various statutory processes would take before the county council could start work. But certainly no orders are yet before the Department and at best some months would elapse before contracts could possibly be let, even were we able to approve them on financial grounds in the present economic climate. The scheme had not reached the firm programme even under the previous administration, and I should be surprised if we were now able to accept it as an additional commitment.
We have to face the prospect, therefore, that this work will fall to be considered by the new Lancashire County Council for such priority as it can give it in its transportation policy and programme and will come within the new transport supplementary grant arrangements allied to the rate support grant. The old Lancashire County Council was, of course, fully aware of the situation and concerned to do the work as soon as possible, but the hon. Member will understand that I cannot foresee what 1063 decision the present council will come to after it has weighed this scheme against all the other demands facing it. One of the hon. Gentleman's purposes in raising the matter tonight was to impress on the new county council the importance of the scheme, which he has powerfully done.
Turning now to the question of the railways, the immediate obstacle to securing any transfer to rail is that the rail connection to the docks was removed in 1970 when Fleetwood passenger station was closed because there was so little traffic. It is no use having rail facilities if they are not used. I understand that the British Railways Board has not been asked to reinstate rail services, and it would need to be sure of an economic return before re-connecting. Nearby ports—Heysham, which is BR-owned, and Preston—are already rail connected.
On the general question of transfer of freight from road to rail, the Government are concerned to see that the rail network is used to full advantage. The Government are considering how suitable traffics can best be transferred, without an unnecessary increase in transport costs. Rail is best suited for bulk trainload traffics over fairly long distances such as specialised merry-go-round, coal, iron, and steel trains, and not small consignments of general merchandise requiring marshalling and door-to-door delivery. The majority of loads in this country are short distance and tend to be small.
1064 If I may give the hon. Gentleman some statistics, the road network is 200,000 miles and the rail network is 11,500 miles. But last year rail carried less than 10 per cent. of the freight tonnage. The average haul in the country of both road and rail is about 40 miles. The lorry average is about 30 miles and the rail average about 80 miles. The scope for transfer to rail is, therefore, small. The general policy is that road and rail should tend to be complementary and not competitive.
I hope that what I have said about the role of the county council clears up some of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman on roads and access.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about fishing and was kind enough to say that he did not expect me to answer the questions he asked. The fishing industry is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's questions to his attention and ask him to comment on them directly to the hon. Gentleman.
The job of the trawl fishermen ranks amongst the most arduous, and I have some experience of this. I will bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the question of oil fuel costs in the fishing industry and also the matter of fishing limits, which are beyond the remit of my Department. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will receive a direct reply from my right hon. Friend.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.