HC Deb 23 July 1980 vol 989 cc478-80
7. Mr. Conlan

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the resources available for trunk roads are adequate to carry out the three priorities set out in the White Paper on roads.

Mr. Fowler

I have of course, set my priorities in the light of the available resources. We are spending more on trunk roads than the previous Administration spent in each of their last two years in office.

Mr. Conlan

Does the Secretary of State recall that the White Paper said that priority would be given to industrial and port routes? Work on the M20 has been suspended and work on the M3 has yet to be announced. Bypasses are another priority. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that 36 bypasses are on the list of suspended schemes, that 34 are waiting to be included in the reserve list and that a further 35 schemes will not begin until 1994?

Mr. Fowler

I do not claim that we are proceeding with all the road schemes with which we would necessarily like to proceed. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will have noted our decision 10 days ago about the M3. In 1979-80 this Government spent £ 380 million. That compares with an expenditure of £ 369 million by the previous Administration in 1978-79 and £ 357 million in 1977-78. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is on slightly weak ground in making his complaint.

Mr. Adley

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, in view of the continuing carnage on the M3, and in the light of the fact that his decision is not perfect, he will, nevertheless, proceed with those sections that are agreed and not hold the entire scheme up on the pretext that, because some people do not wish the road to be built, we should do nothing until every inch has been agreed?

Mr. Fowler

I certainly give that assurance. Obviously, I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have followed the recommendations of the inspector. We must now proceed not only with two-thirds of the road but look again at the possibilities of finding a less damaging solution.

Mr. Roy Hughes

Does not the Minister agree that public resources are precious at present? Will he, therefore, suggest to Sir Peter Parker that they should not be wasted on this spurious advertising campaign which he is currently undertaking? Although we need electrification of the railway service and high speed trains, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we also need vital road projects such as the M25 if we are to have a good infrastructure and a successful economy?

Mr. Fowler

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I made that point in answer to an earlier question, but a comment such as that coming from the Opposition Benches will underline the concern felt about that advertisement.

Mr. Hill

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the M3? However, is he aware of the concern felt by those who earn their living from the port of Southampton about the fact that we shall have a different financial structure for the British Transport Docks Board? Does he realise that we wish to make that undertaking viable? Is he aware that the only way it can be made viable is if there are sufficient motorways serving the port of Southampton?

Mr. Fowler

I agree with my hon. Friend. The M3 is a crucial route to one of our most important ports. We now have to look at the possibilities for the remaining one-third—the Winchester bypass—and if it will help I shall certainly meet a delegation of my hon. Friends on the matter.