LOUGHBRICKLAND—NEWRY ROAD

HC Deb 08 February 1979 vol 962 cc625-38

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

6.39 p.m.

Mr. J.Enoch Powell (Down, South)

It is sometimes necessary for an hon. Member speaking to this motion to apologise to the Minister for having detained him in the House to an unreasonably late hour. In this case, I owe the Minister an apology for breaking into the middle of his working day.

The Loughbrickland—Newry Road, which is the subject of this three-and-a-half to four-hour debate, is not a byway or a lane. It is the southernmost sector of the main road between Belfast and Dublin, one of the principal routes in Northern Ireland and now, I understand, designated as one of the principal routes in the European Economic Community.

Except for the section with which we are dealing, the whole of that road from Belfast to Newry and the border or to the port of Warrenpoint on Carlingford Lough is either double carriageway already—that applies to the vast majority—or, in the few places where it is not, has full provision for doubling in due course, the earthwork necessary for that purpose having already been done.

The proposal of the Department of the Environment is, nevertheless, that the remaining section of 10 or 11 miles should not be dual carriageway, except for a minor portion, but should in principle be an improved single carriageway.

Even at first sight, that is a paradoxical and improbable proposition; and the more I have studied it in the last few months, the more I have become convinced that it would be a disastrous mistake which would speedily be regretted. I sought this opportunity in the House because I felt it my responsibility to put on record the grounds on which I call—as does the relevant council, the Newry and Mourne district council—for a decision to provide a dual carriageway so that, if that decision is not taken, those concerned in years to come who regret it will know whom not to blame.

The Minister a few weeks ago received a deputation from the district council and undertook to reconsider the matter with an open mind—I know that was no mere formality—and he has further agreed to suspend judgment until this Adjournment debate is over, so that the whole case can be on the record and so that we may know exactly on what basis the decision is to be taken.

The Department has, very properly, a rule of thumb on which to judge whether the provision of a dual carriageway is justified. That rule of thumb is a throughput of 17,000 vehicles a day, to be foreseeable, if anything in this world can be foreseeable, within a 15-year period. I wish in the next few minutes to judge our present knowledege of traffic on this road against that standard set by the Department.

We have a traffic survey which enables us to compare the traffic in 1976 and in 1978: we know what has been the growth of traffic on this section of road in the two-year period mid-1976 to mid-1978. It is interesting to note that the volume of traffic in 1976 was somewhat below what it had been in 1968. I shall return to that point a little later. However, for the moment I am concerned with the change in the volume of traffic on that road between 1976 and 1978, a period of two years.

Those two years showed an increase of 39 per cent. in the traffic using the road. I am no lover of straight-line, ruler-drawn extrapolations; but to illustrate the significance of that rate of growth I wish to point out that if one extrapolates at that growth rate, one arrives at the Department's standard for a dual carriageway not 15 years ahead but somewhere in the year 1983—less than four years ahead from where we are now.

So, we are confronted at the outset by the fact that the crude traffic growth in the last two years shows a rate of increase which would fulfil the Department's requirements in one-third of the period of time which its rule of thumb posits. Therefore, on the face of it there is a case to be considered.

We then have to judge whether that two-year sample is a reasonable indication of what the future holds. That is the purpose behind the further facts which I wish to put before the House.

There has undoubtedly been a change in the composition of traffic on this road. If we could go back to 1968, we should find not only fewer commercial vehicles among the total but much smaller commercial vehicles. We are now moving into—if we are not already in it—the age of the juggernaut, and there is a great deal to be learnt from the survey of commercial vehicles passing into and out of the United Kingdom through the checkpoint just south of Newry.

I accept that not all those vehicles, though probably the majority, proceeded along the section of road with which we are concerned, but my point is first to draw attention to the staggering rate of growth in the vehicles entering and leaving at Newry and to the profile of that growth. The figures—which I shall state to the nearest thousand so as to make them easier on the ear—were in 1976, 93,000; in 1977, 104,000; in 1978—the latest figure that could be estimated—142,000. That is not only an increase in commercial vehicles of 53 per cent. over the two-year period 1976 to 1978, but what is especially significant is that the great impetus has not died away but lies in the second part of that two-year period.

So, we know two things. We know, first, that the present trend of the traffic in total on this road is far within the requirements of the Department to justify a dual carriageway. We further know that the rate of increase of commercial vehicles using that road—primarily using that road—northwards or southwards is increasing at an enormous rate, and increased faster as that two-year period went on. Therefore, it is not foolish to extrapolate from the experience of those two years.

We must then examine the question of size of vehicle. Customs and Excise, which kindly supplied me with the figures I have just quoted, does not classify by size of vehicle. But there is no doubt that the increase in the numbers of commercial vehicles is less than the increase in their size. There is a grim statistic which bears upon that. It is the fact that in the hospital at Daisy Hill in Newry, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), the number of road casualties being treated has grown rapidly in the last three years—that is to say, over the period to which the statistics relate. The surgeons whom I have consulted have no doubt whatever about the reason for the growth in those road casualties. They tell me that this growth, which occurred in spite of the fact that the roads on the whole have improved, is due to the fact that when an accident occurs heavier vehicles are involved and therefore the casualties and their seriousness are heightened.

The picture, then, as a basis of judgment, is that the growth of vehicle traffic is amply sufficient to justify by projection—even by the most modest and qualified projection—a dual carriageway on the Department's own standards; that that projection is borne out by the staggering growth of commercial traffic through Newry; and that the moral is reinforced by the increase in the weight of those commercial vehicles.

A little earlier I referred to the fact that our base line, so to speak, of 1976 for this modern comparison happened to show rather less traffic than in the year 1968. We should be greatly mistaken if we were to regard 1968 as providing any indication for the future which now lies ahead. Let me give a number of separate and distinct reasons for saying that we are now living in a new era altogether, that we are living not with the projection from 1968 but with that from 1978, which is quite different.

In the year 1968 Warrenpoint was a very small harbour, not very different from the harbour developed there at the end of the eighteenth century. It is now one of the largest ports of the island of Ireland. Its traffic is growing at an exponential rate year by year and it has a roll-on, roll-off facility which, I am prepared to wager the Minister, will not long remain unused both by regular service traffic and by container-carrying vehicles.

So we are near the beginning of the development of Warrenpoint, which incidentally is already connected with Newry by a fine dual carriageway, a very scenic and spectacular one along the shore of Carlingford Lough. We are confronted with a new development, the development of a new port, whose future growth will centre around the roll-on/roll-off facilities that will be discharging heavy vehicles on to the very road we are discussing. That is something which did not exist in 1968. It is something of which only the mild initial effects could yet have shown themselves even in the year 1978.

Newry itself has been through a bad time. As the Member for South Down, I must confess to having a soft spot for Newry. It is by nature and by situation a fine town, but it has suffered heavily in the disturbances of the last 10 years. That has not prevented the efforts of the Government and of those in the locality to stimulate industry, efforts which are bearing a good deal of fruit already, despite the adversities which Newry has faced. He would be a strange prophet who, standing at the gateway of 1979, was prepared to prophesy that further industrial development in Newry itself, generating traffic to and from Newry, does not lie ahead. So we have a second factor, completely distinct from the throughput of the port of Warrenpoint.

There is then the more general phenomenon of what is sometimes called "the return to normality". Every visitor to the Province who had been there earlier in the last decade is astonished by the alteration now in the atmosphere, by the growth of confidence and optimism on the part of all sections, except one. I refer to the terrorists. For the rest, all sections share in this optimism and hope for the future.

But return to normality is not a correct description for what is happening. Neither Northern Ireland nor Newry is looking back and saying "By and by we shall have returned to 1968". That is not how it is at all. They are moving into a new world, a world which is going to be new in terms of the industrial and commercial activity which will be created and the pattern of transport it will gene- rate. After all, in 1968 rail transport between Belfast and Dublin was still a substantial feature. Nobody, whatever his good wishes for the rail link, can doubt that expansion in the future is going almost wholly to road transport. Short-distance and long-distance vehicles, small vehicles, service vehicles and juggernauts are all going to characterise the commercial activity which lies ahead for Northern Ireland and particularly for the part of it which radiates from the town of Newry. That has hardly started yet. We can feel it starting, but it has hardly begun. Those who visit the area feel this; they know that something is on its way which has hardly started yet, nor yet shown itself in the statistics we possess.

Finally, there is tourist traffic. Nothing can prevent tourist traffic from not just returning to Northern Ireland but expanding at a great rate. The Minister himself was in my constituency in Newry only two or three days ago, launching a brochure to promote tourism in a region which includes the very area we are discussing. He was engaged in promoting traffic on the road link which we are discussing.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter) indicated assent.

Mr. Powell

I am glad to have the assent which the hon. Gentleman could hardly logically withhold.

Possibly, though I doubt it, in Great Britain and on the Continent of Europe wheeled tourism may be reaching some kind of plateau. I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in Northern Ireland it has hardly started yet. When people discover that they can come with their cars—in due course they will come by Warrenpoint, but they can already come by other routes—into a land which offers them a unique welcome and scenery, the present tourist traffic will bear no relation to the traffic which will be generated. A good part of that traffic will use the road link with which we are concerned.

My proposition, then, and my own personal conviction—I would not be urging this unless I were personally convinced—is that the extrapolation of 17,000 vehicles a day to be reached in four or five years may be crude and excessive but that all the pointers indicate that the requirements to justify a dual carriageway will be amply fulfilled long before 15years have elapsed.

Let us come to some of the practicalities. Of course, a dual carriageway will cost more. The present proposed road works to provide a single carriageway of an improved character are costed at £4.7 million. An additional £3½ million will be involved for dualisation. Of that, I say at the outset that when one compares with the £3½ million the cost of making a mistake, of providing a single carriageway for a heavily used road which justifies a dual carriageway over 15, 20 or 25 years, a mistake which, made now, will mean that it will be a quarter of a century before we can come back to look at it again, the cost is negligible against those standards.

There is another factor which the financial comparison does not bring out. Much land will have to be acquired for this road improvement; but the land will have to be acquired for the single carriage way in different circumstances from those which would obtain in order to dualise the existing road. In order to provide an improved single carriageway, it will be necessary to drive a largely new line, which will separate farms and holdings and destroy existing access points to the main road from the holdings on either side. On the other hand, the land which would be acquired to dualise the existing road is land which is already provided with its points of access to the road—a road which already separates holdings, so that the acquisition does not divide them further.

The Minister will understand that I am not saying what I am about to say by way of a threat; but he will find the vesting procedure proportionately more lengthy and costly for the proposed single carriageway, disregarding as it does the existing tenures and, as it were, the lie of the land, than if he goes for the dual carriageway which everyone expects and looks forward to and which would not encounter the same kind of opposition from the public or those to be dispossessed.

So certain does the district council feel that we must take the right decision, and take it now, that it said to the Minister, and authorised me to say, that it would sooner wait several more years with the road unimproved than be committed at this stage to an improved single carriage way instead of a dual carriageway.

That is quite something for an elected local authority to say—that it will wait with an unimproved road for several years if that is the price to be paid for being sure that, when this section is dealt with, it will be provided with a dual carriageway, uniform with the rest of the road from Warrenpoint to the motorway and Belfast.

There is a manifest case for a revision of the decision. If that revision occurs, as I hope it will, the Minister should not feel any repugnance about changing his mind or think that it reflects upon the advice which he and his predecessors have received in the past, for I have pointed out how dramatically, even in recent months, the pointers have changed. When the plan was drawn up originally, we were still living in a different world from that which we can now see ahead as we take our stand in Newry and look to the future.

So far as I can help it, I want to prevent a grave error from being made. I want to prevent a blunder which will be regretted for a quarter of a century. Moreover, I want to prevent a mistake which will cramp, and will be felt to cramp, the development of all kinds that can and should take place in this area of Northern Ireland.

I make my appeal to the Minister; and I go on record for the future, whatever the decision may be.

7.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr.Ray Carter)

In the three hours and twenty-six minutes that we have left of this debate, I shall attempt to answer the case that was so eloquently deployed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).

The Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

That is almost time to build a dual carriageway.

Mr. Carter

We are not going to decide upon that tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am looking once again at the criteria and all the information surrounding the question whether to dual the carriageway between Newry and Loughbrickland. There has been a considerable amount of correspondence between the council and my Department. The right hon. Member for Down, South led a delegation to my office, when we covered most of the questions that he has asked tonight. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall be looking at the matter with as open and as fresh a mind as possible.

This is a controversial matter. The people of Newry might say that three and a half hours is not long enough to devote to this issue. Probably it is not long enough. It is an important road.

Strict standards must be maintained to determine precise priorities in our road programme. I know of the importance that is attached to this road in the area. Indeed, when I first went to Newry, almost three years ago, the state of the road was uppermost in the minds of the people. I am in no doubt about the importance that the local people attach to the road. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is an important cross-border road. It is Northern Ireland's most important road link with the Republic of Ireland. That can be gauged in part by the fact that we are currently assessing the need to improve the road south of Newry.

I shall be stressing that our minds are made up, and have been for some time, but that we shall be looking at the matter again. There are always exceptions to general rules and this might well prove to be such a case. I cannot say that with certainty, but I am bound to look at the question again.

There is a general criticism in Northern Ireland that its roads are below the standard of roads in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is far from the truth. Road standards in Northern Ireland, from the narrow byways of Fermanagh, Newry and Mourne to the high motorway complex in and around Belfast, are probably the best not only in the United Kingdom but in Western Europe. Sometimes misplaced and misleading criticisms are made of the road programme.

The past Governments of Stormont placed much importance upon the high standard of the Northern Ireland road system, because roads are the principal means of communication, and the present direct-rule Administration continue to do that.

I can understand the right hon. Member's concern for the road which runs through the heart of his constituency. It is one of the most important routes in the Province, linking as it does Newry and Belfast. The particular aspect that concerns the right hon. Gentleman is that the route from Loughbrickland to Newry is not being converted to a dual carriageway.

It would be useful if I could begin by recounting the various decisions taken in connection with this route. Whilst, with hindsight, these appear to conflict, I am, nevertheless, convinced that each was right at the time, taking into account the circumstances prevailing.

In the early 1960s it was proposed to build a motorway to supersede the existing road on an entirely new line between Hertford Bridge near Moira and the M1 and border south of Newry. It was the Government's intention at that time that such a motorway would connect up with the route to Dundalk in the Republic of Ireland.

I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in recent years the scale of the motorway programme planned for Northern Ireland has been considerably reduced. Initially, the motorway proposal was replaced by a proposal to provide an all-purpose dual carriageway, basically on the same lines as the existing road but bypassing all major centres of population.

Work commenced on dualling the route from Belfast to Newry in 1968, and at that time it was hoped to have this completed by 1975. Difficulties in land acquisition and subsequent cuts in public expenditure prevented that time scale being met. The economic considerations and revision of standards have forced a departure from the intention to reconstruct this route entirely to dual carriageway standard.

Of the 35-mile distance from Belfast to Newry, some 26½ miles has been constructed or is under construction as dual carriageway. The scheme to bypass Banbridge at present in progress includes earthworks which will permit future dualling, and the short realignment at Mullan's Corner was designed as a single carriageway of a future dual.

Of the last 8½ miles south of Loughbrickland leading to Newry, Lisnagonnell has been constructed as a single carriageway of a possible future dual. Reconstruction of Buskill has already been completed as a dual carriageway. A further one mile of dual carriageway is planned at Tinker Hill, where it has been found that the difference in cost would be marginal because of the extensive realignment which single carriageway would entail in achieving acceptable sight distance standards. It is planned to reconstruct the remaining five miles as high-standard single carriageway.

It is Government policy that the scale of a particular stretch of new or improved road will not be constrained by the standards of other sections of the route. Thus the choice of a particular standard for any stretch of road depends on the need assessed by current methods of prediction and not on what was provided in the past on other sections of the same route. Schemes are assessed using similar economic, geometric and capacity standards to those in use in Great Britain. These have regard to all relevant factors, including an economic appraisal which takes into account the estimated value of time saved and the average cost of road accidents.

Strict application of these criteria to the schemes yet to be carried out on the Loughbrickland to Newry section would not warrant the schemes at present programmed. Nevertheless, because of my acceptance of the importance of this route as the main road link between Belfast and Dublin, I have authorised the inclusion of these schemes at single carriageway standard in the road programme, despite the substantial negative rate of return on the expenditure likely to be incurred. Dual carriageway schemes would consequently be even less economically viable.

The predicted traffic loading on this road has obviously been a significant factor in deciding upon design standards for the schemes remaining to be carried out between Loughbrickland and Newry. The design capacity for a single carriageway is assessed at 17,000 vehicles per day, with grade separated junctions. The figures taken at the biennial census south of Ban bridge and north of Newry last year were 7,845 and 7,195 vehicles per day respectively. That indicates a growth rate of 22 per cent. and 39 per cent. respectively over the 1976 figures. The percentage increases for heavy goods vehicles using this route are 14 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively at the same census points for the period August 1976 to August 1978. While the figures obtained for 1978 show a marked increase, they are still below those which would have been expected had normal traffic growth continued from 1968. But it would seem that during these two years there has been some return to normality. Traffic flows are now approaching the level which might have been expected if there had been normal growth after 1968.

Mr. Powell

I would like to clarify one point. The Minister referred to the calculations that preceded the decision in favour of a single carriageway. Those calculations and assessments must presumably have been made before the 1978 census was available.

Mr. Carter

That is almost certainly the case. It takes a long time to design a motorway, and a lot of time is spent just thinking about the design. I imagine that the figures that we are working on go well back. I shall check and confirm that in writing.

On the basis to which I was referring, it is now thought that the traffic flow between Banbridge and Newry in 1986 will probably be between 9,300 and 12,600 vehicles per day—still within the design capacity of a single carriageway. The estimated cost of the proposed works between Loughbrickland and Newry is £4.7 million. The alternative of completing the remaining schemes in dual carriageway is estimated at £8.2 million. Even in single carriageway form, the schemes proposed show a substantial negative rate of return on the expenditure likely to be incurred. Dual carriageway schemes would consequently be even less economically viable.

There are four schemes remaining to complete reconstruction between Loughbrickland and Newry—Tinker Hill, Sheepbridge, Ballintaggart and Damolly. Tinker Hill is in the reconstruction programme for 1979–80 and design work is in progress. It is hoped to publish notices of intention to make direction and vesting orders later this year. In the case of Ballintaggart, it is expected that a notice of intention to make a direction order will be published within a few weeks. The scheme is programmed for 1980–81. A direction order for the Sheepbridge scheme was published last November. Objections were received, and it is proposed to hold a public inquiry in order to have this resolved. The scheme is scheduled to start in 1980–81.

The Damolly scheme is in the reconstruction programme for 1983–84. In the case of the Sheepbridge, it is conceded that the provision of a single carriageway will have a serious effect on a number of small farms because of land severance. A dual carriageway with a more curving alignment might not meet the same opposition, although the total area of land required would obviously be greater. The effect on the farms concerned is to be regretted, but the additional cost of the provision of dual carriageways will be difficult to justify at present.

I assure the right hon Gentleman that traffic growth on this road will be monitored carefully. If at some future date it becomes necessary to add a second carriageway, this option would still be open. As I said earlier, we are continuing to look at the alternatives suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

There are no physical restraints which would make the addition of a second carriageway unduly difficult. For the predictable future, however, the expected traffic loadings and the much greater cost of dual carriageway construction would indicate that the completion of the reconstruction of this road in entirely dual carriageway form is not justified.

I would like to make it clear, however, that whilst this opinion is based on the best information available at present, I do not rule out a reassessment of the situation if conditions change. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the points raised in tonight's debate will be taken fully into account by my Department. I assure him that those words mean precisely what they say. Following the discussions that I have had with him and with the councillors from Newry, I have already set in train a re-examination and a reassessment. Following this debate, I shall go back on Monday and urge that we look closely at all the criteria and before any announcement is made publicly or to the Newry council I shall inform the right hon. Gentleman of our views and perhaps we can talk once again about the whole subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock.