HC Deb 13 November 1981 vol 12 cc830-8

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

2.29 pm
Mr. Tom Benyon (Abingdon)

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a matter which is of great moment to my constituency—a stretch of road which is causing havoc and has a history of accidents that I find difficult to parallel anywhere else.

I shall outline the history of the piece of road concerned and stress the importance of the A34(T) Newbury-Oxford link in strategic transport planning. It will be helpful to touch on the history of the road in attempting to assess the importance of the issue that I ask the Minister to consider.

The road is regarded as a lifeline for British freight from Southampton to the Midlands. About two years ago, extensive improvements were made which culminated in opening the East Ilsley section of the A34 as a full dual carriageway.

I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the problems caused by an extraordinary stretch of road about 1½ miles south of Harwell and slightly north of East Ilsley. This section is single carriageway. It is a twisting, narrow and awkward piece of road which involves steep gradients and some wicked side turnings. The road surface is poor and old. No one wants to do anything about its improvement as it is apparently believed that at some time the last stretch of motorway may be started.

I cannot understand why this road, which is such a vital link commercially, is so dangerous and pathetically inadequate and why the Department of Transport continues to postpone work upon it in its road programme. At present, the road is no more than an up-market cattle track.

I draw the Minister's attention to some of the comments that have been made by the British Road Federation and to some of the history of postponement. In 1970, the improvement of the A34 from Oxford to Winchester was included in the White Paper "Roads for the Future". On 23 June 1971, the East Ilsley-Chilton scheme entered the trunk road preparation pool. In August 1976 it was included in the Department of the Environment's list of schemes that were expected to start in 1978. On 1 February 1977, it was included in the DOE list of schemes to start in 1979. In the 1978 roads White Paper it was included in the list of schemes with an earliest starting date in 1981–83. In 1980 the roads White Paper included it in the main list for a possible start in 1984—a most significant date. No standard was given and the cost at November 1978 prices was put at £3 million. We should now estimate the cost at about £4.5 million.

The Minister and I, if we continue to be fortunate enough to be in this place, will be locked in Adjournment debates to the year 2000 at the very least if postponements continue to be announced at the same pace.

I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to some Government statements that have been made about this piece of road. One states: The Government will continue to give priority to improving those routes to the major ports and other industrial areas which carry a high proportion of industrial traffic. That is an extract from the transport policy White Paper of June 1977. The next statement appeared in the June 1980 White Paper—"Policy for Roads: England 1980". It is as follows: The major priorities for new schemes will be on the three routes serving Southampton—the M3, the M27 and the A34 from Oxford". A British Road Federation statement comments: The Whitway diversion scheme which was expected to start in 1980 or 1981 will not start until at least 1982. Tot Hill-Donnington and East Ilsley-Chilton are included in the 1984 onwards scheme. The federation believes that only when the whole of the A34 has been improved will the full benefits of the money that has already been spent be felt. Completion of the East Ilsley-Chilton section will be in line with the Government's stated intention of preserving the investment that has already been made and obtaining value for money. The completion of the East Ilsley-Chilton route will make it possible for the A34 to accommodate as much of the north-south traffic flows in the area as possible, thereby reducing the burden on the county road network. There are at present no effective alternatives.

The environmental benefits of roads that remove through traffic are well documented. A great advantage of such road schemes is that they reduce all forms of environmental disturbance from all types of vehicles, and also the number of accidents by segregating through traffic from people. The priority that the Government attach to removing through traffic from settlements by means of bypasses and roads with similar effects should continue. Early completion of the East Ilsley to Chilton section of the A34 would be in line with statements made by the Government in the Armitage report on lorries, people and the environment in December 1980. Purpose-built, modern highways on which through traffic can flow speedily but safely not only give a high economic rate of return but save lives and injuries.

In 1980, more than 6,000 people were killed and more than 75,000 were seriously injured on Britain's roads. The total cost to the community of all road accidents was probably about £2 billion. Schemes, such as the East Ilsley to Chilton scheme, can help to reduce substantially that toll and cost.

I have had many representations from my constituents on the matter. Indeed, I have had representations and assistance from councillor Steve Norris of Berkshire county council, who I should like to thank for his help. I have also had representations from a clerk at West Ilsley parish council. He says that people there are concerned that lives are at risk. The county surveyor of the Royal county of Berkshire has also made representations to me. In his letter of 11 May 1981 he says: The Government's policy for roads published last summer recognised the need to improve the roads to the ports, of which this is one and included East Ilsley to Chilton for inclusion in a future programme for construction after 1984. However—this is the key factor— the economic hurdle remains to be cleared. I am frequently asked why this section of road remains unimproved and a sensible answer is difficult to find. I further quote from a letter from a county surveyor of Oxfordshire county council who supports the need for speedy action. In his letter of 23 April 1981, speaking of the hazard aspects of this road, he said: It has always been recognised that a taper from two lanes to one lane southbound in the vicinity of the Berkshire Downs Filling Station could be a hazard and therefore very careful consideration was given to the layout, the road markings and signing before construction. Although problems did arise when the Drayton to Chilton section was opened to traffic, a review of the aids to movement resulted in the provision of more extensive markings and signings to emphasise this taper. However, the problem is one of driver awareness and it is impossible to provide the facilities that will cope with the excessive speed and insistence of some drivers to continue overtaking where the carriageway markings and signs indicate that they should be in single file. Only the extension of the dual carriageway to East Ilsley will meet this problem. If the Minister can offer me palliatives only today, I and the county surveyor do not believe that they will be sufficient.

I quote the comments of some of my constituents. Mr. King, of G. H. King (Agriculture) Ltd., said in his letter of 18 July 1981: As owners of the land adjacent to a major section of this single carriageway, we would like this improvement carried out as soon as possible because vehicles frequently get out of control, leave the highway and finish up in our fields, sometimes with the ocupants dead inside. It has, in fact, become so dangerous that we can no longer cultivate parts of our fields for fear of a member of our staff being hit by a vehicle leaving the road. Robert Richardson of Richardson (Chilton) Ltd wrote to me on 3 April 1981 as follows: The fence by the road has been completely wrecked. for the fourth time so far, by a car which turned completely about-face in the squeeze lane, collided broadside with another vehicle, which possibly did not stop, and then landed on top of one of the oak fencing stakes after demolishing at least six more stakes and the five-strand barbed wire fence … The situation seems to be arriving when it will no longer be possible safely to keep any livestock adjacent to this stretch of fast main road through no fault of mine. The Newbury district councillor for the area, John Morgan, said: Something must be done about this atrocious piece of road. I can see no end to the accidents. From reports that I have received those comments are an understatement.

Berkshire county council has been most diligent. The county made submissions last December to the regional control office at Guildford which is run by the Departments of the Environment and Transport. Apparently, the regional control office is blaming staff cuts for delay in bringing the road work forward.

In a letter of 19 October 1981 the regional controller said: I did not foresee that we were going to suffer a reduction of one-third of our strength towards the end of the year. It appears that cuts in the regional control office are partly to blame for the delay in renovating this section of road.

In the meantime, the carnage goes on. I believe that the accident rate is much higher than the national average for such roads. The accident figure here per million vehicle miles is 0.7, whereas the national average for single carriageway is 0.5. The statistics are out of date because last week there was a fatal accident in which a bus and two cars collided. Another two cars had accidents just north of that section of road. The accident rate for dual carriageways is 0.15. If the road were improved, the accident rate would drop substantially.

I pay tribute to Mr. A. C. Fox of Road Safety and Accident Investigation who wrote to me and said: The accident record at the single carriageway stretch of the A34 linking the two dual carriageways at Chilton and at East Ilsley shows there to be three main danger spots: (a) The sudden link between single and dual carriageways at Chilton. (b) The A34—West Ilsley turn-off at (Chilton). (c) The three-lane section incorporating a bend over Gore Hill (East/West Ilsley). Mr. Fox is an expert, and he has studied the matter in great detail. He says: The danger spots are highlighted in the following list of traffic accidents at all of which I have attended. At short notice I have only listed in detail data for the two-year period from November 1979 to present date. However, there were a relatively short time earlier two fatal accidents of note. I shall not burden the House with the details of the gruesome list, but there have been 13 dreadful accidents since November 1979. Mr. Fox ends his letter with some key words. He says There are possibly some two to three times the number of listed accidents which have occurred—not necessarily of serious injury. That accounts for some of the discrepancies between official lists and the lists from my constituents about the state of the carnage. Broadly, Mr. Fox's letter is substantiated in a letter from the county surveyor and engineer, Mr. John Peverel-Cooper of Oxfordshire county council.

I challenge the Minister to tell me of another stretch of road anywhere in the area with a higher accident rate. My constituents are deeply alarmed that if they travel down the road their chances of being killed or injured are substantially higher than on roads in other parts of the country.

I am aware of the need for public expenditure cuts. I am also aware of the need for us all to observe as much financial continence as possible. However, the Minister will wish to differentiate between capital expenditure in the construction industry and revenue expenditure. I support capital expenditure on roads such as I have described. There is a subsidiary advantage. It is not just a matter of saving life and limb. The building of the road would assist some of the unemployed in my constituency. Their efforts would be put to good effect.

The Minister could not authorise the expenditure of £4 million in a better cause. There have been eight deaths and six accidents. The last was at 1.15 pm on Sunday 9 November when a 20-year-old man died in a multiple collision with two cars and a bus. I know the problems that the Minister faces. I understand them well. However, I believe that an exception should be made in this instance. On behalf of my constituents, I beg the Minister, on grounds of safety and in an attempt to save lives, to agree to an immediate start on the improvements to the road.

2.45 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) and the House will forgive me if I pick up briefly one or two of the general points that he made, with which I wholly agree, before I go on to devote most of my time to the very worrying problem in his constituency.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the benefits that the national trunk road programme can bring. It is of great economic benefit to our industry in reducing traffic delays and in reducing the cost of accidents on our roads. It is often of great environmental benefit in putting traffic on to purpose-built roads and in taking heavy lorries, in particular, away from houses and shopping centres.

I am glad that we have been able to maintain our programme of trunk road building during the two and a half years in which we have been in office. At the moment we are up-to-date with the programme set out in the White Paper that we produced a little over a year ago. We hope to continue the momentum of a well-managed programme and to deliver the roads that the country needs by the dates that we have indicated.

I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the things that the Government have to do in this very difficult time for the economy is to ensure that we do not repeat the mistake of our predecessors by making cuts in capital programmes when such programmes would have some lasting benefit. But we have to search for economies in current expenditure. We have managed, nevertheless, to keep up to schedule with our trunk road programme. We are delivering some important roads and we have been giving the priority to the A34 that my right hon. Friend rightly said it should have. It is a vital link road between the ports of Southampton and Portsmouth on the South Coast and the industrial centres of the Midlands, so that it carries not only the usual busy traffic of a main artery down the middle of the country, but a lot of important industrial traffic, in large and intimidating heavy lorries.

The Government have, therefore, been trying to improve the route from beginning to end, and next week we shall be announcing the details of the M40 to be built between Oxford and Birmingham to make that substantial stretch of road much more suitable to the industrial needs of the country.

With regard to the section of the A34 that is nearer to Berkshire, south of my hon. Friend's constituency, we have made some substantial improvements to the road to Southampton. I recently had the pleasure of opening a bypass round Sutton Scotney. That bypass, together with the South Wonston diversion, now provides a continuous length of about 27 miles of dual carriageway between Litchfield and the outskirts of Southampton.

That dual carriageway includes parts of the Winchester bypass that are very sub-standard and very dangerous. We therefore have plans to improve the section between Easton Lane and Bar End, Winchester, when we extend the M3 from Popham, where it ends at the moment, and we are also having an urgent study carried out by consultants into the Bar End to Compton section of the Winchester bypass in order to find some means of improving that to faster and safer standards.

Further north, plans for the improvement of the A34 from north of Litchfield to the north of Newbury are very much in hand. We have published draft proposals for the section from the Litchfield bypass to Tothill. I know it, as my hon. Friend does, by the name of the Whitway diversion. I hope to announce decisions concerning the next step for the diversion in the near future.

A study by consultants into possible ways of improving the road from Tothill to north of Newbury is being carried out, and that should lead to consultations with the public on possible alternative means of improving the road during the spring of next year.

Other schemes have recently been completed very near to the stretch of road with which my hon. Friend is so concerned. The Chilton-Draycott bypass was opened in 1977, and that links to the southern end of the Abingdon bypass. In 1979 the Beedon bypass was opened, joining the northern end of the Donnington link at the M4 to the southern end of the East Ilsley bypass. The Whitchurch-Litchfield bypass, which was first opened as a single carriageway, had a second carriageway opened in 1980.

The result is that those improvements now leave the section of the A34 between East Ilsley and Chilton as a rather isolated section of single carriageway which gives rise to the serious problems that my hon. Friend was describing. Improvement of this section, however, is by no means a simple task.

The first thing to bear in mind is the that stretch about which we are talking, between East Ilsley avid Chilton, which is almost 2 miles long, passes through an area which is, quite rightly, designated as one of outstanding natural beauty. It also crosses the ancient trackway known as the Ridgeway, at the summit of Gore Hill.

Those who are hostile to the idea of road building in this country often suggest that we are insensitive to the effects that road building and road improvement can have on the countryside and the environment. That is not the case. We have very elaborate procedures both within the Government and in the way in which we progress schemes, which show that we are very sensitive indeed and anxious to minimise the damage to the natural beauty of the country. This area is a very sensitive one within which to embark on any road improvement.

Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend says, there are considerable difficulties in the present traffic conditions on the road. Gradients on the A34 either side of Gore Hill are steep and the general two-lane road has been widened to provide additional crawler lanes up the hill, which should enable traffic to pass the slower heavy vehicles. I shall not repeat the description of the road conditions that my hon. Friend has given. There is no doubt that accidents are taking place on the road. I very much regret that there have been these accidents, and even while we have been preparing for this debate and updating our review of the road, in order to give a reply to my hon. Friend, some terrible accidents have been happening only in the last week or two.

All our roads in Britain are never completely safe places upon which to drive, and we have a high level of road accidents on all sorts of roads. Until recently it was not the case that the accident rate on this road was spectacularly out of the ordinary. Until recently one could have said that the accident rate was only just above the national average, but it shows very worrying signs, of which I am aware, of getting worse. The accident figures—which of course are only the figures by which we measure something that is a serious human tragedy in most cases—are undoubtedly becoming even more worrying.

There has been a gradual increase in both the serverity of the injury to the victims and the number of accidents over the last three or four years. In statistical terms the accident level is above the national average for personal injury accidents. The figure for this stretch of road is 0.7 personal injury accidents per 1 million vehicle kilometres, as against a national average of 0.49, so my hon. Friend's point is well taken that there is a bad accident record.

Although I do not have examples readily to hand to respond to my hon. Friend's challenge, there are more dangerous stretches of road in other parts of the country, most of which already feature in our trunk road building programme. Entirely off the cuff and without preparation, I suspect that further south, for instance, the accident record on the Winchester bypass is at least as bad as this, if not somewhat worse. But it is certainly no part of my case to try to minimise the bad accident record on this stretch of the road between East Ilsley and Chilton.

Behind the statistics lie the particular details of the accidents. They can give us some indication of what needs to be done to improve matters and make the road safer. I can assure my hon. Friend that in reviewing this sort of scheme we do not look just at the bald statistics. We shall carry out in-depth studies of events that gave rise to the serious accidents in order to try, with the assistance of the county council, police records and anything else to hand, to determine what particular features of the road are giving rise to the danger to road users. It is in the light of those studies that we shall review the position of the road in the programme.

Dealing with the Government's trunk road programme—which the Government are delivering, as I say, in the course of their period of office—my hon. Friend went on to criticise the dates that have been put on the scheme to improve the East Ilsley to Chilton section of the A34 from time to time. It is true that it was originally admitted to the preparation pool as early as 1972, and various other dates have featured in publications since then. My hon. Friend mentioned the British Road Federation, which is an active campaigner in this area. Although it often campaigns against as much as with the Minister responsible for these matters, I normally rather appreciate the BRF's assistance, because, at the very least, it is a valuable stimulus to activity and keeps us on our toes in trying to keep our programme to time.

I am in dispute with the British Road Federation because it often supplies colleagues such as my hon. Friend with a history of dates for roads that are not a helpful guide to the present state of play. Former Governments, especially the Labour Government, produced documents with notional dates for roads. There was never a promise of delivery. It tended to be the first date by which it would be technically feasible to produce a road. The number of roads with dates attributed to them in various publications far exceeded the number of roads that could be built in any given year. When the Government took office, there was no sign that any resources had been planned to produce roads by anything like the dates expected by many people throughout the country.

The Government produced a White Paper "Policy for Roads: England 1980". It was an attempt to fit the highest priorities in the trunk road programme within the probable level of resources available to us. We have not cut the resources. We decided to maintain the level of trunk road expenditure at about the level that had been maintained by our predecessors, and then set out a timetable of priorities bearing in mind the engineering difficulties and statutory procedures. To release resources for new construction the Government suspended work on a number of trunk road schemes. That released money that would have been spent on needless design work to maintain the pace of construction on high priority roads.

The scheme to which my hon. Friend referred, together with others, was reviewed when we produced the White Paper. It kept its place in the main programme. The White Paper described it as being in the main trunk road programme to begin from 1984 onwards. We did not put an exact date on any road scheme beyond 1984. There were so many uncertainties that planning beyond that time was not possible. Meanwhile, we are progressing with more important schemes, such as the Sutton Scotney bypass further to the south on the same stretch of road. We are studying what can be done between East Ilsley and Chilton.

We have investigated a number of schemes to dual that length of road and improve the junctions on it. We have had to bear in mind the need to reduce the damage that might be done to the attractive landscape and the local environment. We have done our best to minimise the effect on neighbouring property. All the solutions that we have considered are fairly expensive for such a short stretch of road—between £2.45 million and £3.17 million.

Using the economic criteria that we usually apply to road schemes, the possible solutions do not produce good economic benefits. Judged in purely economic terms, they would be bad value for money. There are some disadvantages to some of the schemes, because of possible damage to the countryside. We are left with a tricky problem in deciding what scheme to pursue and what priority to give it when judged against other schemes. I am considering the results of the investigations and hope to make a further announcement early in the new year.

My hon. Friend has been successful in obtaining an Adjournment debate at the time when we are carrying out our investigations. His strong representations today will have an influence on our decisions when we weigh up the schemes, decide where we can obtain value for money, and decide what can be done in the most cost-effective way to improve the dreadful accident figures. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, and also his constituents' views, when I make a further announcement early in 1982. The debate will assist me to weigh up the various propositions and decide what steps to take to improve that important stretch of road.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o' clock.