HC Deb 24 November 1976 vol 921 cc152-60

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

9.59 p.m.

Mr. John Spence (Thirsk and Malton)

In this Adjournment debate I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the question of the application of construction priorities as they affect the Malton bypass. I suppose that a better and more apt title for the debate might be "the stop-go-stop saga of the Malton bypass". I am sure that the Minister would not demur. Some of my constituents would say that an even better title would be "the raw deal for Malton over its bypass." I am sure that, again, the Minister would not demur.

Malton is a major market town and conservation area in my constituency. It was first planned that the town should be bypassed, not quite in the days of one of my illustrious predecessors, the great Edmund Burke, but still a long time ago, namely in 1926. The bypass was for the benefit of the contiguous towns of Malton and Norton. The latter town is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). After this long delay of 50 years and a major escalation in the cost of construction from £100,000 in the 1920s to, I believe, £6 million today, my constituents and those of my hon. Friends still do not have their bypass.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Spence

The most recent event in the saga was that construction was promised to begin in the summer of 1976. The Minister can well imagine the shattering disappointment to my constituents when they were told that our bypass was to be postponed yet again. Their reaction was aptly summarised in leading article in one of our leading local newspapers, the Yorkshire Evening Press. I can do no better than to quote it. It said: No decision in recent years affecting the immediate future of Malton and Norton has brought such heated reaction, dismay and disbelief, as the latest postponement of a start to the by-pass. Heightening the anger is the thought that it was confidently expected that initial work on the road would begin this autumn. As this summer has shown so graphically and frustratingly, York's by-pass aggravates the problem; when the Tadcaster by-pass is completed—probably long before the Malton scheme is begun—the traffic queues will stretch back even farther from Malton. What a grim prosect for townspeople and travellers alike. What the postponement means for Malton is that traffic will continue to choke the town. The railway level crossing will continue as a major impediment to traffic flow and the town's buildings will continue to have the life shaken out of them. Local industry will suffer and industrial opportunity will be lost. As the Minister will be aware, disappointment has given rise to a vigorous action group, of whose constructive proposals the Minister has been informed.

The Minister may well say that this postponement is because of necessary economy cuts in the road construction programme. I put it to the Under-Secretary that this argument is wholly erroneous. I shall proceed to demonstrate that point. The three bypasses—Tadcaster, now being constructed, York, now finished and in use, and Malton—form a logical system of bypass roads opening up the whole of the East Coast from Hull-Bridlington in the south to Scarborough-Whitby in the north. The system opens up that span of coastline to the whole of West Yorkshire and beyond and to the north-south trunk road and motorway system. If it does not do that, the system serves no purpose.

To postpone the Malton bypass, we do not know yet for how long, which is a key bypass in this system of bypasses, each of which is an essential element of the whole, is comparable to constructing a building but, on grounds of economy, postponing the roof construction. These bypasses should be con- sidered as one integrated opeartion—I emphasise that—so that the option to postpone one is not an option which is open if sensible road construction priorities and sensible economies in road construction are to be applied.

The Minister might also say that the Malton bypass is no more than desirable. If that were so, I should not be standing here making this speech. I put it to him that that is not the case. The road is essential productive investment, essential to industry and to the industrial expansion of Malton and it environs. It is essential, too, to the heavy industrial and commercial traffic flow to and from Teesside and Hull, each in turn the product of earlier productive investment.

It is relevant to the argument to point out that in Malton town centre the traffic count in 1973 was 14,400 vehicles per hour over a 16-hour day count period. Two miles east of Malton on the same day it was 12,700. In 1975 in comparable terms it was 18,000—an increase of almost 50 per cent. This can be compared with the northbound traffic count in 1974 on the A1(M) Doncaster bypass of 12,400 vehicles. The road use and the demand for the bypass for industrial traffic I am sure I have amply demonstrated.

Taking the adequacy of the existing road, the road through Malton town centre is 20 ft. wide at the maximum. The Minister's regulations suggest a 24 ft. minimum. The regulations couple with this width a capacity of about 9,000 vehicles. Malton is being asked to take nearly double that amount of traffic over a 16-hour count period on a reduced road width. So it is not merely a desirable scheme, it is an essential scheme of productive investment, and on that I rest the case. Its absence adds costly difficulties to everyone engaged in business throughout the whole of North-East Yorkshire.

The Chief Executive of Ryedale District Council—the district council most affected—and every public authority, trade and commercial organisation in the area are agreed that the bypass is needed immediately. The Malton Bypass Action Group is to be congratulated on the work it has done in co-ordinating the industrial and other data and in making them available to all interested parties, including the Minister. Much of the work has proved to be original work.

I should now like to put before the Minister some indicatoin of the industrial activity of the area. It is often forgotten that there is considerable industrial activity and that it is central to the hard core of consistent employment in Malton and environs.

Let us take, for example, Bright Steels and the effect on that firm. That firm estimates that traffic delays in Malton cost £1,000 a week. The Yorkshire Farmers Bacon Factory suffers traffic delays costing about £1,300 per week. Other firms which experience costly delays are Plaxtons, coach builders; McCains, frozen foods; Dales, general manufacturers; Ward Brothers, steel works; Knapton Silo, maltsters; Scarborough Harbour, shipping. All these firms are major employers in Malton and environs who experience delay and extra cost in the conduct of their business because of the Malton bottleneck. This is not to the advantage of a development area, which Malton is.

Next, I draw to the Minister's attention the Malton Livestock Cattle Market. He will appreciate that Malton is near the centre of a large agricultural area of north Yorkshire. This is the third largest market in the country. Livestock is being delayed in traffic hold-ups and so takes longer to reach its destination than is desirable for the animals themselves or is necessary. These delays have added to farmers' costs and do little good to the livestock, to say nothing of the growth of the market itself, something in which many of my constituents are extremely interested.

There is a further agricultural aspect which may have attracted the Minister's attention. As a nation we want to increase our agricultural production and take full advantage of our EEC membership. To this end it is known that grants have been made by our Government, by the EEC and by FEOGA towards developments in the Malton area. They are on record and I will not go into detail now, but some of them have been sizeable grants. Some have been taken up, but some have not.

I am informed by reliable sources that those grants which have not yet been taken up are being seriously reassessed because their viability depends on keeping transportation costs to a minimum. The Minister is well aware of the importance of transport costs within the EEC and of knowing transport costs in relation to the price level. This, in turn, requires a free flow of traffic through Malton and Norton.

The Minister may also claim that postponing the bypass is equitable in relation to general public expenditure cuts—equitable meaning, of course, equal misery for all—but the claim does not stand up under critical examination. Some areas are more equal than others, particularly if those areas are London and metropolitan county authorities. We are in a non-metropolitan county authority area.

This is to be seen from the statement made by the Secretary of State when announcing the rate support grant to local authorities for public expenditure next year. He was reported to have pointed to the special efforts he had made to help ease the rate increase burden on London. Presumably, the saving in public expenditure from postponing the Malton bypass helps him to give London preferential treatment at Malton's expense. My constituents will want to know why. When they have to face next year's rate increase shocker they will rightly feel aggrieved. They will have been deprived of an opportunity to improve their area's industrial efficiency. As a consequence of the postponement of the bypass this improvement will not be possible to the same degree. If the International Monetary Fund inspectors were asked to support the Malton bypass, on grounds of increasing efficiency they would probably say "yes". When my hon. Friend the Member for Howden met the Minister last September in connection with the postponement, he formed the opinion that there was hope for an early start. I hope that the Minister will confirm that his opinion was properly founded.

The purpose of this short debate—and I hope that I have achieved it—is to give the Minister some fresh ammunition. I know that he is a reasonable man and will advance the case for Malton with great energy and conviction. My job is to give him further ammunition so that he can advance our case for the bypass to be constructed now and also to convince the Minister that it is not only important but a vital adjunct to the industrial and social life of the town and its environs. By any criteria-production, industrial investment, no matter how one judges-the Malton bypass passes muster.

Until last spring—and the Minister will fully understand this—the bypass seemed to be so near. It now appears to be so far. The question is, how far? I ask the Minister to tell us.

10.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence) for raising this matter, which has caused considerable concern, not only to his constituents, but throughout north Yorkshire. The hon. Gentleman has given a clear and fair account of the problems as he and his constituents see them and has explained the difficulties that beset not only the area in the immediate environs of Malton, but the other parts of the region that suffer from congestion on this single arterial link from west Yorkshire.

There is no doubt that many hopes for an easier future were dashed when the deferment of the scheme was announced. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about this being conceived as part of three linked schemes through to Tadcaster and York and that Malton will suffer because Tadcaster will be completed and York is complete.

It was not an easy decision because the case for the scheme was well established, the statutory procedures had been satisfactorily completed and tenders had been sought. It does not require much imagination to picture the disappointment and frustration which a last minute setback, even though of a temporary nature, was likely to cause after years of patient waiting.

Unfortunately, this unpalatable decision had to be taken because the severe cuts in funds available for road building in the next financial year left insufficient resources to cover our essential needs. It is unfortunate, but in our present economic climate it is hardly surprising.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the public expenditure White Paper published last February announced a reduction in the resources available for road building and that this was compounded by a further large reduction resulting from cuts in public expenditure for the next financial year which the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it necessary to announce in July.

New road construction involves long contracts usually extending for two years and the lion's share of resources in the year immediately ahead is invariably heavily committed to construction which is already under way. This committed work could be avoided only by large penalty payments to contractors and greater disruption to the communities affected. The stopping of work once started is not really a viable option. Cuts can fall only on the relatively small expenditure not already committed for the year ahead.

Malton was one such scheme. A month or two later and it would have been in progress, but when the decision was needed, it was an option to be continued or deferred.

In these difficult circumstances, it was decided that the right course was to use up all the limited resources available for new work on those schemes where the national benefit was likely to be greatest. All the schemes due to start in the coming year were scrutinised and resources were concentrated on roads linking major trade centres and ports as well as the long overdue London orbital route. Unfortunately, the available resources were soon exhausted and the Malton scheme, together with many other worthwhile schemes of local and regional significance, inevitably have to suffer some delay until they can be accommodated again in the construction programme.

The hon. Gentleman said that this scheme was conceived as part of a linked scheme and it is a pity to have to delay one part. However, Malton is not alone in this position. We have had to defer other parts of link schemes in other parts of the country in the same way. It does not make much sense, but once we decided to commit resources to major national schemes, this left nothing for schemes of this kind, even though there is the definite disadvantage that they were conceived as part of schemes which were essentially linked.

I should stress that no special effort has been made for London. London has cut back to meet the Secretary of State's wishes on its local transport grant, which has been reduced from previous levels. There is no question of resources being transferred from Malton to London. The hon. Gentleman may think that he could persuade the IMF to intercede on his behalf, but I can assure him that we have been as fair as we can to Malton in relation to other parts of the country.

This scheme has had a long history. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 50 years and I do not dispute that. It was included in the firm road programme—the Department's forward schedule of work in 1971—and with its design work and the statutory processes satisfactorily completed, which is something we have difficulty with on some occasions. Construction was intended to start this year. We have had no second thoughts on the desirability of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman used the word "desirability" in a pejorative sense. I go further. We accept the need for the scheme, a need not simply for seasonal or tourist reasons, but for narrow, strictly defined industrial and commercial reasons.

That point was well made in the representations we have had from the hon. Gentleman and the action group. I have here a minute of the meeting I had with the action group on 7th October. It was represented by Dr. Weir, Mr. Bean-land, Mr. Thackray and Mr. Power. Mr. Thackray has some connection with Bright Steels and made the point very well that the supply of parts and finished goods would be adversely affected by the decision to delay the scheme. Mr. Bean-land spoke of the adverse effect of congestion on trade and commerce. We thus had two strong representations from people closely involved in Malton's industrial and commercial life.

The announcement made on 4th August following hard on the reductions in public expenditure quoted a possible delay of between one and two years. I hope that it will not be necessary to keep Malton waiting that long. I cannot say now precisely what the delay will be. We are not in a position to give a full verdict on that yet. We have still to complete negotiations with the local authorities on the general disposition of the transport budget, so I cannot say anything clearer. I hope that I shall shortly be in a position to do so.

The postponement caused a storm of protest in the Malton area. I understand and sympathise with the reaction. I have been impressed by the wide range of comment which the decision provoked from industrial and agricultural interests as well as tourist interests, and by the considerable enthusiasm with which local individuals and organisations have shown and the speed with which they have thrown themselves into the action group and other efforts at keeping the scheme on schedule. I was impressed by the action group's performance when it saw me. Its representatives put a thoughtful and convincing case which I accept.

All of this—including the hon. Gentleman's efforts, with those of the action group and other hon. Members from the area who have expressed concern over the years—has helped to keep the scheme in the forefront of the Government's mind. The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in giving me even more ammunition in fighting not only to ensure that there is a sensible and rational road programme for general commercial and industrial needs, taking account of environmental consequences, but to meet the real needs of Malton. I cannot give him further direct information about the likely delay, but I hope that it will be less than the two years quoted in August. I am almost confident that it might well be less, but I cannot be sure.

I leave the hon. Gentleman with the comment that the case made out for the scheme has impressed all who have listened to it. We have the ammunition to try to fight it to the full. I also hope that we shall have the resources.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.