§ 1.10 a.m.
§ Mr. Ken Weetch (Ipswich)I count myself exceedingly fortunate to have secured this short debate on the time scale for the Ipswich bypass. I have been particularly anxious to press for such a debate after the totally unsatisfactory reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave in a Written Answer to me on 14th November. That reply hit my constituency like a thunderbolt. All sections of the community received with utter disappointment and dismay the reply that the construction of the bypass might begin in about six years.
My constituents have been given two estimates of completion dates for the bypass. The earlier estimate of completion was 1979, and the second was 1981. The latest announcement by my hon. Friend means that the project will not now start until perhaps 1981. This is degenerating into a long saga of frustration and delay, and Ipswich residents are beginning to 1319 wonder whether the project is now falling into the "This year, next year, some time, never" category.
The case for the construction of the Ipswich bypass to be given urgent and immediate priority in the national roads programme is overwhelming on economic grounds. This part of East Anglia, which the bypass is intended to serve, is one of the most swiftly expanding areas of Britain in economic and commercial terms. The bypass is intended to accommodate commercial traffic to and from Ipswich, Felixstowe and Harwich, which together provide the fastest developing docks complex in this country.
In terms of expanding trade, these ports are of enormous and increasing national importance. In terms of exports, the bypass would serve as a crucial link with roads connecting the area with the industrial Midlands, notably the line of the A45. In terms of imports, one has to remember that heavy freight from Felixstowe, a growing proportion of which is container traffic, at present goes by the A45 to the Midlands and by the A12 to London. The import trade through Harwich and Ipswich, especially now that the new west bank extension will increase the trade of the port by over 20 per cent. is of rapidly developing importance, too.
Yet what road structure serves the Ipswich area at present? Heavy commercial traffic from the areas I have mentioned, which must converge on Ipswich, now experiences a massive and rapidly worsening bottleneck. Literally tens of thousands of pounds are lost in sheer delay and damage to the environment. The problem is urgent because, as our trade with Europe expands month by month through the Haven ports, so the chaos and delay multiplies, and our trading prospects will become further damaged.
The situation now is that the road system of Ipswich and the immediate area which it serves is chronically overloaded. This heavy traffic converging upon Ipswich can do one of two things. It can go by the north route using the ring road which runs through a built-up residential area, and the delay, vibration, dirt and noise are appalling and have to be seen and heard to be believed. Some of the traffic goes by the southern 1320 route, which goes through roads in which are located terraced houses with front doors which open directly on to the road. In those houses the china rattles on the shelves, cracks appear in the plaster, and women taking their children to school go in fear of injury. The chaos on these roads has to be seen to be believed, and yet they must serve as a jugular vein for our exports and imports through the area.
The situation is getting worse because ironically, the roads in the immediate area are slowly being improved. There have been major constructional improvements on the A12 and the A45 but this means the bottleneck in Ipswich becomes worse. The net result so far of these improvements is that the heavy traffic in this nightmare reaches that point sooner than before, and it is for these reasons that delay is serious. Urgent priority for the construction of the bypass is vital.
I am arguing the case tonight on national economic grounds because of the enormously important economic and commercial future which this region can have for the prosperity of Britain. The early construction of the bypass will provide an investment return which in national terms will be considerable. There is an environmental case to be met which is no less serious because the effects of delay in this construction are becoming quite socially lethal. But it is the economic case that I am largely arguing, and I emphasise that I am not solely engaged here at this late hour on special regional economic pleading.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies I hope that he will revise his earlier answer to me and restore the firmly established priority of this bypass. He can then strike a blow both for economic advance and for environmental improvement in this critical area of East Anglia.
§ 1.18 a.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) for giving me the opportunity of explaining more fully the answer I gave him in the Question to which he referred, and the opportunity to clarify the position on the timing of the bypass for Ipswich. I con- 1321 gratulate him on the able manner in which he presented the case on behalf of his constituents and the tenacity with which he has kept at me and my Department on this question.
I am fully aware, and if I had not been my hon. Friend would have made me so, of the urgency of providing a new bypass for Ipswich and of the growing concern about heavy traffic through the town, which is aggravated by the container and freight traffic from Felixstowe and local industrial areas. We are also very concious of the fact that the ports are growing in that part of the world and that they have an important contribution to make to the national export drive.
Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend some of the background to the case, although I know he is probably well aware of it. If I may go through the problem step by step as the Department sees it, it will at least reassure my hon. Friend that no time is being wasted.
When the new bypass was first included in the trunk road preparation pool in 1972, it was announced that construction could possibly begin in 1977. This did not take account, however, of the changes announced last year in the consultation procedures prior to the publication of the proposals. The additional process of consulting the public on alternative routes has added another 12 months to the preparation stage. As my hon. Friend will know, the public consultation originally planned for February this year was further delayed by four months by the General Election. The whole question of public participation is one of great difficulty. In a democracy we try to give people the opportunity to see the alternative routes for a road which is quite a major intrusion in the vicinity of their homes and places of recreation, and to make a choice of the route that is preferable to them. This is a good democratic process, but we must accept that it causes delay.
It has taken some time to analyse the completed questionnaires and letters received following the consultation and public exhibition of plans and models of our alternative routes and crossings. A great deal of expense and trouble and the time of highly-skilled people in the Department is put into the exhibitions. It is a credit to the Department that it goes to such trouble and takes such an active 1322 part in trying to inform the public of the possible alternatives, and even why the road should be built.
It has also been necessary to carry out investigations into a number of extra alternative routes suggested by the public. This is another cause of delay, which is legitimate and which happens with every major road that the Department plans. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive the report of the consultations and to announce the preferred route early in the new year.
Another point which has added to the complications of the scheme, and of which my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, is the River Orwell crossing. This could be either by submersible tunnel or by bridge. For a submersible tunnel a channel is cut in the river bed and a tunnel is laid in the channel. The matter must be studied. Either method is extremely costly. Whichever is ultimately selected for further study must be the subject of discussions with the harbour and water authorities, which are responsible for maintaining the shipping lanes into the port.
As explained in the public consultation document, the detailed design of the alternative routes is by no means complete. After a preferred route has been established it will be necessary to continue the design of this route in order to prepare draft proposals for publication. In view of the difficult soil conditions in the area, the Department will have to carry out detailed soil and topographical surveys. This was shown up in work on earlier bypasses in exactly the same type of terrain.
If everything goes smoothly, the earliest date by which the orders can be published is early 1977. Passage through the various statutory processes, particularly on a scheme of this size, inevitably takes time. Following publication of the draft orders for the line and side roads, a minimum period of six weeks must follow for the public to lodge objections. If, as seems likely, a large number of objections to the proposals are received, a public inquiry will be held before an independent inspector.
Naturally, the greater the number of objections received, the longer the ensuing inquiry. From experience we find that it takes up to 12 months for the inspector 1323 to make his report and recommendations and for these to be cleared by the Secretary of State before he can announce whether the orders should be confirmed. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish him to override any objections and representations received against the orders without first weighing them carefully. If my right hon. Friend confirms the draft orders, the Department will prepare and publish a compulsory purchase order to acquire the land. That, too, will undoubtedly be subject to public inquiry proceedings. It might be possible to save a few months by publishing the compulsory purchase order at about the same time as the line and side roads orders. There are risks, and we are considering whether that would be practicable.
I am saying that a large part of the time scale of six years that I mentioned in my earlier reply is unavoidable in view of the efforts that are made to consult the public—in this case the people of Ipswich—on the route the road will take. After they have been consulted they are given the right to make objections. If we are taking over a man's house, cutting off his garden or going right through the centre of his house, he must have some rights to object or to lodge some form of protest. People throughout the country legitimately raise these matters, and they undoubtedly take time. The construction of the bypass cannot begin until all the statutory processes have been completed satisfactorily.
In reply to my hon. Friend on 14th November I said that, subject to availability of funds, I hoped that work on the bypass might start in about six years. I regret that there is little chance of work starting before 1980 unless we find that there is less opposition than is expected to the Department's proposals when they are published. Apart from that, I see little scope for improvement in the timing.
My right hon. Friend has not yet decided whether the River Orwell should 1324 be crossed by tunnel or bridge. Either would take longer to complete than the remainder of the road, and we would be prepared to see whether it would be practicable to start the crossing in advance of the road works. Failing that, it might be possible to open the western section and part of the southern section of the bypass in advance of the remainder whilst the bridge or the tunnel is being completed.
I hope that I have made the position clear and that my hon. Friend appreciates that, whilst I am as anxious as he is to provide relief to the residents of Ipswich, the speed at which we can proceed is governed largely by statute. All those who are affected by our proposals must be given an opportunity to object, and the objections must all be carefully considered. The question also arises of adequate finance at the appropriate time to pay for these costly improvements to our road networks. However desirable the objective, therefore, it is not always possible to achieve it as rapidly as one would wish.
I am sorry if I have not given my hon. Friend exactly what he wanted— namely, a starting date in the near future. I hope that I have been able to explain the difficulties involved and that I have been able to hold out one or two grains of comfort. The Department is, of course, anxious to go ahead with the project. Once we are on the beginnings of the project, when we have overcome the statutory problems, we shall do everything possible to try to speed up the purely engineering problems that are presented by the road. I must point out that at the end of the day, after going through all the necessary processes, the project must compete with other schemes in other parts of the county, which are fought for just as hard by the Members representing those areas.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past One o'clock a.m.