HC Deb 24 June 1980 vol 987 cc439-50

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

1.53 am
Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

At this very late hour, I welcome the opportunity for a short Adjournment debate on the effect of the 1980 White Paper on roads—Cmnd. 7908—and the effect that it will have on my constituency of Bedfordshire, South.

I start by saying how glad I am to see the Minister in his place and by thanking him and his officials for the way in which they have received delegations from various parts of my constituency since the present Government came to power in May of last year, and for giving my constituents and organisations in my constituency and towns and villages the opportunity of putting their case for improvement in the roads that we have.

The Minister and I have been in the House for 10 years. We got in on the same day—19 June 1970. We both have local problems. One that has in many ways dwarfed all others for me in South Bedfordshire has been the question of our roads and traffic. That is why I am glad to have a chance to raise this matter tonight.

There are two main reasons why we have such a high volume of traffic in South Bedfordshire. First, we have the large car and truck plants in Luton and Duns—Vauxhall and Chrysler, or Talbot, as it is now called. They generate a considerable amount of traffic. Secondly, in the town of Leighton Buzzard we have one of the largest concentrations of road hauliers. They generate a large volume of traffic.

It would be easy for me to have a debate on every village in South Bedfordshire and spend a considerable amount of time on it, but I want to confine my remarks tonight to the way in which the 1980 roads White Paper affects us, because it mentioned certain parts of my constituency that I now wish to talk about.

First, I welcome the White Paper for its detail. It is a very thorough attempt to evaluate priorities. I think that we all—certainly Government supporters— recognise that this is done with the background of restraint in public expenditure.

I start with paragraph 156 of the White Paper and say how welcome I find it when it says that relief will be provided on the M1 between junctions 5 and 8. That infamous two-lane stretch has an effect on South Bedfordshire. Indeed, this history of the M1 in that area shows, as paragraph 156 stresses, that Substantial resurfacing work has already been undertaken. …Extensive reconstruction is about to start in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. On 23 June there was a typical day on the M1. At 8.15 am, which one would think was a reasonable time of the day for people to get to work, everything came to its customary standstill because of the colossal volume of traffic. There was no rain, fog or snow. Nevertheless, that road was in a shocking state. There is urgent need for road widening. I am therefore delighted to see in paragraph 156 the commitment by the Government that widening of that stretch is to start.

I turn to paragraph 155. As the Department said earlier this year, the Thame-Stevenage road has been suspended. The White Paper says that it: has been suspended for the time being. I am glad that it goes on to say: We do, however, intend to complete it eventually. Those are the further words in the paragraph.

I am especially pleased to see that paragraph 155 goes on to mention several towns between Thame and Stevenage. Leighton Buzzard is one of them. Duns is another. The White Paper says: We are now considering urgently whether bypasses for any of them should be undertaken quickly and what arrangements might be made for constructing them. My information is that Bedfordshire county council has just applied for a 100 per cent. grant for the construction of the Leighton Buzzard-Sutton bypass. In other words, it has done what is already being done in Faringdon and Thame. Earlier in paragraph 155 it says that A bypass for Faringdon has been completed and one at Thame is under construction, both with the aid of 100 per cent. grants. In other words, Bedfordshire county council is seeking to do for Leighton Buzzard what has already been done for Thame and Faringdon. The programme to build this bypass is in the 1982–83 Bedfordshire county council road programme.

I hope the Minister will say, in these early hours of Wednesday, whether the Government are sympathetic to this application for a 100 per cent. grant and when we are likely to know whether we have got that 100 per cent. grant for the southern relief road in the way that Faringdon and Thame have already got theirs.

The Minister kindly received a delegation from Leighton Buzzard about the urgent need for a bypass. The congestion in the town is bad. The future of its industry is dependent upon communications being improved. I have already mentioned the large number of road hauliers, and there are other equally important companies in the town which urgently need the southern relief road. There is a strategic need to build the road because of Leighton Buzzard's position in the West-East corridor, with traffic going to the East Coast ports. There has been a substantial growth of housing in Leighton Buzzard, which has generated more traffic. There are also the environmental needs of the town.

I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government are sympathetic to the 100 per cent. grant for which the Bedfordshire county council applied, and when we are likely to know whether our application is approved. The matter is urgent. The White Paper recognises that, because it mentions Leighton Buzzard. I hope that there will be an early decision.

I turn to Duns, which is mentioned in paragraph 155. The Government say that they are urgently considering whether a bypass is needed. It is not clear from that paragraph whether the Government mean a North-South bypass or an East-West bypass. If one says in Duns "What about the town's bypass?", most people imagine that it is the North-South proposal, off the A5. The A5 is a trunk road, and people naturally assume that if there is to be a North-South bypass the Government will pay the bill for its construction.

When the M1 was constructed 20 years ago, it could be held then, and for a few years after, to be a sort of bypass for Duns. That is no longer the case, first, because the M1 has become so con gested that it is a deterrent to use it to bypass Duns and, secondly, because there has been a substantial growth of traffic which funnels down the A5 because of the extraordinarily rapid growth of Milton Keynes during the past 10 years. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will say whether the Duns bypass is to be North-South or East-West. If it is to be East-West, I assume that it will be a road between Duns and Hockliffe, hopefully linking up with the Leighton Buzzard southern relief road. It is an urgent matter that the North-South bypass should take some of the traffic out of Duns so that the main A5 in Duns becomes less congested.

I turn to the village of Barton, which is mentioned on page 51 of the White Paper—which is welcomed for its detail, although I do not necessarily agree with everything that is said about a particular area. Under section C "Schemes in Preparation", which are temporarily suspended, there is mentioned the A6 Barton bypass, marked with an asterisk. At the bottom of the page it says. Future of scheme under review. My hon. and learned Friend will recall that I brought the parish council from Barton to see him about the urgent need for a bypass. Is the concept of a bypass under question? Are we ever likely to get one, or has the whole idea been abandoned?

On page 42, the village of Silsoe, a little further up the A6, is all right, because it is estimated that its bypass will be completed in 1981. A little further up the A6 towards Bedford, Wilstead already has its bypass completed. Many people in Barton say "What is good enough for Wilstead and Silsoe should be good enough for Barton. Barton is tired of being the Cinderella of the A6 between Luton and Bedford and getting absolutely nothing done for it." Like every village in South Bedfordshire, Barton has grown considerably in the last 15 years. That increases the need for a bypass. Bedfordshire county council is anxious to make full use of the bypasses already constructed at Silsoe and Wilstead and divert traffic on to the A6, which is a trunk road. It is fair and reasonable—and sensible from a national view—to build a bypass on the A6 for Barton.

I appreciate that everybody is clamouring for priority as a result of the publication of the White Paper, and that resources are limited. In the last 15 to 20 years, relatively little has been spent on Bedfordshire's road system compared with other counties. That does not mean that nothing else has happened. Industry has expanded. The car and truck industry causes special problems on the roads. Housing has grown at a fast pace in the last 20 years. I refer not only to housing for ourselves but to housing for London. The county has taken a considerable amount of GLC overspill. If we are to maintain a reasonable environment with a balance between town and village it is important to proceed with the bypasses.

The case for constructing the bypasses is not simply a local one, vitally important as that is. There is a national case for improving the roads and constructing bypasses. Bedfordshire is in a double corridor from West to East. The traffic to the East Coast ports is increasing because of our membership of the EEC. We are in the South-East/North-West corridor, where the main industry of the country is situated. I am grateful for the detail in the White Paper about Leighton Buzzard, Barton and Duns, but I hope that the Minister can go further and say more about the time scale and the Government commitment to go ahead with the bypasses.

2.07 am
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the first hon. Member to initiate a debate on the White Paper on roads. I congratulate him on the way in which he has presented the case for his constituents.

I shall first deal with the White Paper in general so that the House can put my remarks about Bedfordshire schemes in context. It is important that people understand what the White Paper is trying to do. The White Paper does two main things. It describes our policy for the trunk road system and lists in as much detail as possible all the schemes for new construction and improvements grouped according to the period during which construction is likely to start.

The Government's first priority must be to ensure national economic recovery and to reduce public expenditure to help to achieve that. The road programme must be considered in that context. The plans in the White Paper are a compromise between what we would like to do and what we can afford if we are prudent about the nation's resources.

We shall be spending about £300 million at November 1978 prices on new construction and improvements in each of the next four years. That means that the programme is being stabilised at the level that we inherited from the last Administration. There is no dramatic reduction in the levels of spending on the roads programme in which the massive cuts were made between 1974 and 1976.

However, we have cut out supposed plans for increased spending on the trunk road programme for which the previous Government made no sensible provision. The programme includes nearly 400 schemes, at an estimated total cost of about £3½ billion. That represents a substantial investment in new roads, but it is a long-term trunk road programme.

In drawing up the plans in the White Paper we have chosen two priorities for our immediate planning. The first is the need to complete roads that aid economic recovery and development, particularly roads between our industrial centres and the ports. Our second priority is to build roads that bring environmental benefit—particularly bypasses, to take heavy traffic out of towns and villages that were never designed to take it.

Against that general background, we have tried to be realistic in setting starting dates for particular schemes. The dates given for such schemes in this White Paper are considerably more realistic than those given in the previous Government's White Paper, which tended to be over-optimistic in terms of pure practicality and possibility. Many schemes listed in this White Paper have later starting dates than those that were shown in the previous White Paper, which was published in April 1978, but as those forecasts were always optimistic, some schemes appear to be delayed in our White Paper, when they have been subject to no delay as a result of policy. We hope to achieve the dates that are set out in the White Paper, as opposed to making optimistic guesses.

In reassessing the scheme, we decided that a number of schemes, although worth while, did not command the highest priority and were unlikely to be started for some time. Rather than spending money on preparation work now on every scheme, we decided to stop work at a sui point on a fair number of schemes and put them on ice, to be resumed at a later stage when we are nearer to a possible date for construction.

Against that background, I turn to the specific problems of South Bedfordshire. There has already been a substantial investment in roads in that area, which includes the major motorway of the country—the M1—which runs through my hon. Friend's constituency and affects his constituents to a considerable extent. I know about the difficulties that occur on the M1 at the two-lane section that runs near Watford. My hon. Friend described the conditions on a particular Monday morning, when to the best of my recollection I was travelling down the M1 through traffic jams approximately half an hour after the time he described. It is therefore with pleasure that I am able to say that we are proceeding with proposals to widen this two-lane section, and we have invited tenders for it. We hope that work will start on the widening in September of this year, although it is a substantial scheme and it will take about three years to complete. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be relieved when we at last get rid of that bottleneck.

The comprehensive improvement of the A1 is nearly complete. Although it is to the East of my hon. Friend's constituency it has relieved the A5 and the A6 of much of their traffic, and we plan to start work on the final section of the A1 improvement near Hatfield in 1982–83.

My hon. Friend spoke about villages in his constituency and the Thame-Stevenage route, which is designed to improve East-West links through the area. I announced on 18 March that for the time being we were halting further work on the project. We took that decision in the context of our review of the whole road programme, but I announced it in advance of the White Paper in order to stop any further abortive expenditure. The development of the route is intended to serve a longer-term need. The White Paper makes clear that we intend to construct it eventually, but its possible construction is so far ahead that we did not think that we could justify continuing expenditure on its preparation at present. The preparatory work was expensive, and the funds can be put to better and more immediate use elsewhere. For that reason, further development of the route is deferred for the time being.

As my statement at the time recognised, and as I am happy to confirm again today, we believe that there is a stronger case for getting on with bypasses for some of the communities along the route. Some work is being carried out, and the Thame bypass is already under construction. The local highway authority, the Buckinghamshire county council, is constructing it with a 100 per cent. grant from my Department, because it will eventually form part of a trunk road when the Thame-Stevenage link has been completed.

Against that background, there are a number of other towns on the present route from Aylesbury to the A1(M) at Stevenage, where we are now considering the possibility of bypasses. Leighton Buzzard, Luton, Duns and Hitchin are the most obvious cases. We are now considering whether bypasses for any of them should be undertaken in advance of the rest of the Thame-Stevenage route. In the case of Duns, I refer to an East-West bypass. I shall refer to the North-South bypass later. We shall now have to consider what provision we might make for those four places for constructing bypasses in advance of the main route.

We have various alternatives. One would be to take them into the trunk road programme altogether. Another would be to use the 100 per cent. grant procedure. On the other hand, we may decide that these bypasses are really catering for local traffic needs and will not really fit within the trunk road network at any stage, in which case the responsibility for constructing them will be left with the county council and we shall make grant available under the transport and supplementary grant system. At present we are considering whether schemes for those towns would qualify for the 100 per cent. grant procedure, which is enabling the Thame bypass to be constructed. If any of them do qualify, they will have to compete for funds with other schemes already in the programme.

I begin with the case for a southern relief road of Leighton Buzzard. This has been planned for some years by the county council. It would be a bypass to encourage through traffic to use the A4012 between the town and the A5, thereby relieving the A418 through Heath and Reach, to the North. The scheme was shown at one stage in the county council's TPP as a scheme to be started in 1976. In 1977–78 the council said that it was delaying the final work on it while we examined the need for Leighton-Linslade southern relief road. My announcement in March altered the situation, but we are taking further steps to examine the possibility of a Leighton Buzzard southern relief road qualifying for a 100 per cent. grant. We have asked Bedfordshire county council to come forward with detailed proposals for this relief road, so that we can judge how well such a scheme would fit in with other proposals in the Thame-Stevenage corridor. I understand that the council is well advanced with that work and I believe that it is on its way to us now. When we have that detailed work we shall be able to see whether the criteria for a 100 per cent. grant are satisfied, and judge what priority we should give the scheme in our programme.

Pending our receipt of that work, I can tell my hon. Friend that I am fully aware of the problems of Leighton Buzzard, and I fully accept that there is a case for a bypass to the South of Leighton-Linslade. The county should not slow down any preparation work that it is doing as there is no doubt that Leighton will get such a bypass in due course. We are really deciding now how to finance it, and once we come to a conclusion on that we can begin looking for a date to fit the road into our programme or that of the local authority.

My hon. Friend asked how long it would take to get through this stage of receiving proposals and then producing conclusions on them. I would expect to complete that in 12 months at the most, so by that stage we should know exactly what status the new road will have.

My hon. Friend also mentioned schemes on the A5 and A6 through his constituency. Since the M1 was built and the A1 was improved to motorway standards for part of its length, the A5 and A6 have had a much less important role as national strategic routes. They now serve local traffic needs rather than national ones, although I appreciate that the local traffic is very important and is building up to some extent. In due course these roads should be detrunked—that is. handed back to the county council. It can then assume responsibility for them as local roads. That does not mean that we shall neglect our duty, meanwhile. to improve them where necessary and offer release for communities along those roads.

The stretch of the A6 between Luton and Bedford has been improved over the years. Bypasses have been built for Wilstead and Wilstead Hill. The Silsoe bypass is under construction and should be opened this autumn. The Elstow bypass has had to be put back a bit. It is in the reserve list for 1980–81. However, it will be fitted in as and when a gap appears that leaves resources in the road construction programme.

The only remaining scheme, therefore, is the Barton bypass. Together with my hon. Friend, I met a delegation from Barton parish council. I know how acutely it feels about the traffic conditions in the village. I know that proposals for a Barton bypass have a very long history. I fully understand that when comparisons are made between Barton's position and that of Wilstead, Silsoe and Elstow, they feel somewhat neglected. Part of that is due to sheer chance. Silsoe and Elstow appear to have had their bypass schemes in a more advanced stage of preparation. For reasons that are beyond recall, the plans were ready to be used before financial problems were incurred in managing the trunk road programme.

At present, Barton must await a decision on the question whether we can continue the preparation work. In the White Paper, it appeared as one of the schemes upon which preparation has for the time being been suspended while its future is reconsidered. I listened with sympathy to the case put to me by my hon. Friend and his constituents when I met them. However, following our review of the national programme, it was impossible to justify giving it a high priority in the national trunk road programme.

In economic terms, using modern methods of analysis, it does not represent good value for money. Although it would bring environmental benefits, they must be compared with those available under other schemes. They are not so overwhelming as to justify priority. That does not mean that the whole thing has been abandoned. It means that I appreciate that the people of Barton are disappointed and worried about the prospect of further delay. At present the scheme could be helped only at the expense of more urgent schemes. It will be a few years before anything can be done to give relief to the village of Barton-in-the-Clay.

The length of the A6 between Luton and Bedford mainly serves local traffic. In the long run we envisage detrunking it. It would then become the responsibility of the county council. It would be for it to decide what priority it gave to improvements. It may be that the county council would accord it a higher priority than I have been able to give from a national viewpoint. If so, the bypass might be built more quickly if the county council were to take early responsibility for the A6. I shall be happy to consider any representations that the county council wishes to make.

As for the A5, the Department informed the county council about three and a half years ago that it did not intend to include a trunk bypass for Duns. The main reason was that the A5 served predominantly local traffic. One length of the AS in Hertfordshire has already been detrunked. That means that a decision was taken some years ago to the effect that any North-South road in Duns would be for the county council to plan and finance, rather than my Department—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Two o'clock.