§ Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for attending at this extraordinarily late hour to reply to the debate. She of course looks fresher and more charming than anyone.
My hon. Friend appreciates that I am a new boy to the Al-M1 link discussion. As she knows, before June the M25 occupied much of my time. The Al-M1 link has been under consideration since 1974. There has been an endless series of nagging questions on the subject in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was active in the interests of his constituents before he joined the Government team.
There can be no doubt that the provision of high standard routes between the industrial midlands and the haven ports is essential to our economy. At present there is no high standard east-west route between the M62 in the north and the M4-M25, which is the London, Bristol and south Wales route, in the south. Those two routes are 160 miles apart.
Within the EC, international traffic has increased twice as fast as national traffic over the past 10 years and that growth shows no sign of slowing. It would be a grave mistake for the Government to fail to provide a route of consistently high standard between the midlands and the haven ports serving the important markets of Germany, Holland and Belgium. The haven ports are the fastest growing in the United Kingdom and Felixstowe will shortly become the country's largest container port.
The introduction of the tachograph means that areas within a four-hour travel time contour will enable a return journey to be made within the day if there is a proper dual carriageway.
This vital third major east-west route is some 200 miles long and all except approximately 43 miles of Al-M1 link is built or firmly programmed to dual carriageway standards. I understand from the Department of Transport that east of Kettering there may well be single carriageway only. It would be crazy if short-term, penny-pinching economy results in a bottleneck there, because a dual carriageway east of Kettering is long overdue.
I shall quote to my hon. Friend, not unfavourably, what she said on 21 March 1983. She said that:
few would disagree that such a link is necessary. For too long now, the absence of a direct, high-quality east-west route for the growing volume of traffic between the midlands and the rapidly expanding east coast ports has left a serious gap in the country's road network."—[Official Report, 21 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 700.]Those are wise words, with which I wholly agree.My hon. Friend's Department predicts design year flows in Cambridgeshire of up to 18,600 vehicles per day —this is the average annual daily flow—of which some 25 per cent. or 4,500 a day are lorries. The Department suggests that under certain conditions, whatever those may be, the traffic can be accommodated only "at the expense of a much reduced level of service." This means that there will be hellish congestion with a single carriageway. In any event, traffic is growing in this corridor, and, indeed, throughout the eastern region, at a much higher rate than the national average.
I must warn my hon. Friend, therefore, that there is a risk that if the Government fail to recognise the importance of making this link dual carriageway throughout now, 214 firms may well be persuaded to re-locate in mainland Europe to ensure better access to markets. The manufacturing base of the midlands will be reduced, with disastrous consequences for employment and prosperity.
I understand that the Treasury uses a cost benefit analysis system to help it decide whether to authorise single or dual carriageways. I understand, further, that with the Al-M1 link it is currently borderline even on that formula. If the Government insist on what I maintain is a foolish, shortsighted, single carriageway decision, by the time the wretched thing is ultimately built the cost benefit analysis will justify a dual carriageway in any event. In those circumstances the Government will end up, I am afraid, with egg on their face.
Throughout history, short-term niggling bookkeepers have made wrong decisions. They have been wrong, for example, in their failure to buy embassy property abroad, but rather to lease it. I maintain that they were wrong over Maplin, which would have been built now at much lesser cost. Invariably they are wrong because they are unable to take the long-term view. My hon. Friend the Minister, on the other hand, with her responsibilities, has to look ahead. She has to be aware of the importance of transport to our economy and to our environment. Those are the economic and commercial arguments which I submit are overwhelmingly in favour of building a dual carriageway throughout the Al-M1 link without any more dither.
There are compelling social and environmental arguments as well. The area in question has rich agricultural land, with villages of great charm and beauty and communities which depend upon their maintenance. They are gradually being destroyed by the internal combustion engine and by heavy lorries in particular. I quote my hon. Friend the Minister, again favourably, speaking in the same debate on 21 March this year, when she said that
the existing routes are unsuitable for heavy lorries".Later she said:The residents of numerous towns and villages currently suffering from the effects of east-west traffic are pressing hard for action to relieve their problems."—[Official Report, 21 March 1983, Vol. 39, c. 700.]I entirely agree with her.Let me cite Kimbolton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, which is, I believe, known to the Minister with affection or, at least, it has affection towards her, and the village of Great Staughton in my constituency. Many more villages could be cited, of course. I can tell my hon. Friend that only the other day an enormous juggernaut turned over completely in the main village street of Great Staughton, by a miracle not killing anybody, but causing total chaos in a small, delightful rural community. These great beasts are necessary for our economic survival, because of course goods have to be moved, but the proper place for them is on roads constructed for the express purpose, not on roads and through villages which were born in an earlier, more peaceful rural age.
I know that my hon. Friend, who is one of our most successful Ministers, understands the urgency of building a proper Al-M1 link; and I know, too, that her battle is with the Treasury. When I was in the Government I had many similar problems, and I discovered that the best way to stir that body into action was for Government Members—spurred themselves by people outside—to make it clear that they were no longer prepared to put up with 215 Treasury blocking. Many hon. Members share my views, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who has taken the trouble to be here at this late hour to speak in the debate. Many people outside the House also share my views, including political, industrial and trade union leaders in the west and east midlands, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Northamptonshire and the haven ports.
My hon. Friend the Minister has the great advantage of having as the Secretary of State a former Treasury Minister. Let him be a gamekeeper turned poacher, and let them and their Department shake the Treasury out of its torpor and, in the interests of the entire nation, get something done. If they do, they will earn the plaudits not only of my constituents but of the nation.
§ Mr. J. F. Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) on raising this important matter even though at a late hour. He spoke with his customary eloquence, and his arguments were completely convincing. It is a great pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her usual place. We look forward to her response to the debate, and her reputation as a far-seeing and helpful Minister precedes her.
The Al-M1 link rises in my constituency, so I am well aware of the benefits that would accrue from its early construction. I am a Member from the west midlands, and I am familiar with the industries and business needs of that area. The link is important for at least four reasons. First, it would provide a new, fast route to the east coast ports for the industries and factories of the west midlands. It would aid exports, especially to Germany, Scandinavia and the Soviet Union, and would especially assist heavy industry and the transport of motor vehicles to those markets. It would reduce unemployment by attracting new businesses, and would make existing industry more competitive. That point was especially well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West.
On 12 March 1980, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health—then Under-Secretary of State for Transport—said:
My right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance attached by British industry to this section of the route to the Haven ports."—[Official Report, 12 March 1980; Vol. 1000, c. 617.]My hon. and learned Friend's remarks were entirely right, and the quote shows for how long this matter has been considered.The second reason why this route is important is that the MI is grossly overloaded, and this link would take some of the traffic that currently uses that motorway. Those who use the MI regularly, as I do, will know how congested it becomes, will be familiar with the repairs that are carried out every few miles, with the dangers inherent in contraflow traffic, and with the number of accidents. We are worried about road safety on the M1, and the benefits of the Al/MI link will be measured not only in money or time but in the number of lives saved.
On 25 June 1980, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) told the Select Committee on Transport that 216
the MI-Al link which is generally agreed to be a vital road in a European as well as a national context … was originally planned in the 1978 White Paper, to start in 1981–83.Therefore, it already appears that that much-needed link is running behind schedule.My third reason for supporting the early completion of the link is that it would help the construction industry. It would provide work and also increase investment in the infrastructure. My hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in the matter. I very much hope that the new road will be constructed in concrete. I am aware that concrete construction costs twice as much as the equivalent construction in tarmac, but my hon. Friend will be aware that concrete lasts twice as long, so the road will continue to function without costly repairs and the number of accidents associated with those repairs. Roads constructed in concrete are generally safer than roads constructed in tarmacadam because their design allows the water to run off more quickly, therefore reducing the risks of aquaplaning. There is a film in the Department's archives that underlines the point about aquaplaning and I realise that my hon. Friend will be aware of that.
The next point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West. I am concerned, as he is, about the fact that much of the new road is proposed to be single carriageway. I very much support what my hon. Friend said. That would indeed be a greivous error. We are not being sufficiently far sighted. It reminds me of the old saying about buying cheap being in the long run to buy dear. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that matter.
I refer to the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on Transport on Wednesday 2 July 1980. In a memorandum submitted by the British Road Federation Limited on the roads White Paper, it is stated:
The White Paper itself points out: 'the fact remains that provision of an adequate road network is a prime requirement for any industrial society. It would be irresponsible not to press ahead with essential schemes' … Britain devotes 0.5 per cent. of its GDP to road construction while Germany devotes 1.2 per cent. and France 0.9 per cent. of a much higher GDP. Yet both Germany and France already have a superior road network to our own; for example in 1978, Germany had nearly three times the motorway network, and France nearly twice.Those are the comparisons that one must strike with our continental competitors.My fourth reason is that present roads to the east coast are overloaded. Heavy vehicles, articulated lorries, container lorries, transporters and low loaders all rumble through our towns and villages. We are all aware of the pollution that comes in their wake—the noise, the smoke, the smell, the fumes and the vibration. We are equally aware of the problems of road safety and the number of road accidents in the villages and towns through which those heavy vehicles travel. We are aware of the damage to property, roads, sewers, drains and water mains. All that has a cost but there is also a cost to be measured in delays, frustration and added wear on vehicles. All of us in the House will agree that heavy trucks, congested narrow streets, and people equal injury and distress. There must be a clear case for trying to keep them separate.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)indicated assent.
§ Mr. PawseyI am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding in agreement. I know that she is aware of the issues and that she is as concerned as we are about road safety.
All road traffic, be it cars, vans, trucks or whatever, is increasing. If the link is not speedily commenced, more men, women and children will be involved in road accidents and more deaths and injuries will occur. New roads are like rivers—they attract commerce, industry and jobs and bring prosperity. Roads can be compared with arteries. When they become clogged, thrombosis results. The same applies to industry. It is paramount that we ensure that our road network is in good condition and adequate for our modern society.
I wish finally to quote from a document entitled
Policy for Roads in England: 1983",which states:The remaining significant gap in the links needed by Midlands industry is the MI-Al link via Kettering. Detailed proposals for this have now been published and a public inquiry should be held early next year".I hope that the inquiry finds for the road and that a speedy start will soon be announced. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. Knowing her as I do, I am sure it will be a helpful contribution and will hold out hope to hard-pressed villages in the area and to industry in the west midlands.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) for participating in this important debate about a much-needed road scheme.
One of my first tasks when I went to the Department of Transport in 1982 was to walk over a substantial part of the route. Since then, I have driven from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) across the existing routes taken by the traffic coming into the area via the haven ports and the exports going from the west midlands and the northwest out through the haven ports.
I am aware of the acute problems facing villages such as Kimbolton where, on each occasion that I have passed through, I have had to reverse and wait until heavy goods vehicles have negotiated the two right-hand bends in the village. Although I do not know the village of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West intimately, I am aware of the problems caused by wide and heavy loaded lorries.
The need for the M1-A1 link road is not in question. The road as proposed goes from the MI across to the A14, which is a little to the east of the A 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West quoted from the March debate. For too long there has been the absence of a direct, high quality east-west route for the growing volume of traffic between the midlands and the east coast ports. It is a serious gap in the country's road network. To the west of the Ml, the M6 and the M45 give good road access to the industrial west midlands and the north-west, while east of the Al the A14 now bypasses Huntingdon and the A604 and A45 have been progressively improved to provide a dual carriageway route all the way to Ipswich.
Progress has been made. With the completion of the Ipswich western bypass on which construction is due to 218 start in February 1984, this high standard road will continue to the ports of Felixstowe and Ipswich and help with access to the port of Harwich. Between the M6 and the Al, however, there is no direct east-west route, and the existing routes are unsuitable for heavy lorries. Industrialists in the west midlands are convinced that a new road is essential for the future prosperity of the area.
There is a unique agreement between the CBI and the TUC which, two months ago, jointly requested that the entire link should be built as a dual two-lane carriageway.
I am convinced of the necessity for the road. The east coast port authority, and many others, are equally convinced that the continued growth in their area, and continued growth in the west midlands, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said, depends on the completion of the link from the M6 to the Al and the A14. Above all, I know that the residents of the numerous towns and villages currently suffering the effects of east-west through traffic are pressing for action to relieve their problems.
We are well aware of the high rate of traffic growth, which is above the national average. It has been reflected in the traffic surveys carried out both last year and this year. We took that into account both in our scheme design and in our economic assessment of carriageway standards. But on future growth in east Anglia, it is our policy to consider the effects of both high and low growth forecasts with an open mind. That is in accordance with the recommendations of the Leitch committee and the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment.
The surveys taken have given us additional information. I am grateful to Cambridgeshire county council for its part in that. It has been consistent in pointing out to the Department just how great the growth has been, especially in non-oil freight tonnage coining from the haven ports; since our entry into the European Economic Community.
There has been great growth at Felixstowe. Tonnage in 1973 had doubled by 1982. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has predicted that the volume of traffic through the port in 1982 will double by 1990. We also see encouraging growth at Harwich and Ipswich. It is clear that more than 90 per cent. of the tonnage handled by the haven ports is road freight, with half of it bound for the midlands and the north-west industrial area. We are well aware of the pressures that that places on countryside areas that need relief from heavy goods vehicles on unsuitable roads.
Another urgent need is to improve road access to Corby and so encourage the industrial regeneration of that town. The same considerations apply, although to a slightly lesser extent, to Kettering. There is no doubt about the benefits that the MI-A 1 link road will provide. It is the missing 45-mile link in the midlands to the east coast ports route. Together with the proposed Kettering northern bypass, it will bring the much-needed improvement in road communications with Corby.
By taking traffic directly from the Ml-M6 junction at Catthorpe across to the A6 south of Rothwell, then on via the Kettering southern bypass and the eastern section of the link towards the A1, it will provide the shortest and best link. It will remove the through traffic from many communities on existing roads. At the eastern end of the link road, the villages of Bythorn and Ellington in Cambridgeshire will benefit directly, while other 219 communities further from the route, such as Kimbolton, will benefit from the reduction of east-west traffic on the A45.
There are problems with taking any road through what is mainly agricultural countryside. It is fair for people to argue that there are losses as well as gains with any new route. The published proposals for the link road scheme will take a fair amount of agricultural land. I am obviously concerned when we have to take agricultural land to improve our industrial communications. We have made a deliberate effort to design the route to follow existing farm boundaries. By using the disused railway between Kettering and Thrapston and generally upgrading the A604 from there to Brompton, farm severance on the eastern section of the link road has been kept to a minimum.
With so many farms involved, we are obviously anxious to mitigate the impact of the road as much as we can, and that is why we are already engaged in many discussions with the farmers affected. About 720 acres of agricultural land are affected. After discussion with the farmers affected and the National Farmers Union, I am sure that we shall be able to decide on a route that will cause the minimum agricultural damage to the area. We have appointed specialist agricultural consultants to advise on matters such as severance and farm management, and they will have further discussions with the farmers and their agents.
Both my hon. Friends stressed the need for this link road to proceed as quickly as possible, but it is clear from the comments received since the draft orders for a link road were published in November 1982 that not everyone shares the view of my Department or my hon. Friends of the route that the link road should take. In addition to numerous local variations, no fewer than four full-scale alternative strategies have been put forward by objectors. My officials are discussing those alternatives in detail with the objectors promoting them and are investigating all of their implications. We want to ensure that the Department and its opponents have all the information necessary to hold a full debate on the relative merits of the published proposals and any alternatives to them. The forum for that debate will be the forthcoming public inquiry.
We are pressing ahead as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said that we are behind schedule in building such a road, and that may be true. We are always wise after the event. We can look back and say, "Why did we not build the road 10 years ago?" We are not losing any time in undertaking a thorough preparation for the public inquiry and of the alternative routes. That is necessary if we are to have a proper debate at that public inquiry. Both my hon. Friends will know that the public inquiry and the statutory processes that will follow will necessarily be lengthy for such a complex development. Even so, the published scheme could be completed by 1989—much sooner than any of the alternative strategies put forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned the type of construction and safety. I am aware of his views and those of others about whether to use concrete or tarmacadam. There are high safety standards for both materials, and I assure both my hon. Friends that we are not penny-pinching in any way about the safeguards for the type of construction of this road.
220 I come to perhaps the kernel of the argument—the standard of the road in the section from Kettering eastwards to Thrapston and across to the Al and the A14. If we get the go-ahead to construct the road on its present alignment, we must decide the important issue of whether we should build the road as a dual carriageway from the M1 to Kettering, but a single carriageway east of Kettering, or as a dual carriageway the whole way. That is a matter of intense concern to me, a large number of hon. Members, local authorites, interested organisations and members of the public. Our published proposals are for a single carriageway road east of Kettering, but I must decide soon whether that is right or whether the invitations from many concerned that it should be an entirely dual carriageway scheme should go forward to the public inquiry.
I know that my hon. Friend is a decisive supporter of an all-dual carriageway scheme. He may also know that all three county councils concerned — not just Cambridgeshire, but Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, too—as well as four of the five district councils most concerned also favour dual carriageway throughout.
In fact, nearly 10 per cent. of the objections that we have received are because we did not originally promote an all-dual scheme. They include the objections of Cambridgeshire county council, Huntingdon district council, local authorities in East Anglia, industrial and commercial interests in the west midlands and East Anglia and national organisations such as the CBI and TUC.
Strong support for that view has come from Members throughout the House. I and the Department have taken careful account of those views and of the most recent surveys which show that the volume of traffic likely to use the route is growing more quickly than was forecast before we issued our proposals for a part-dual and part-single carriageway road. The traffic surveys also improve the economic case an all-dual carriageway solution.
Even so, the issue is not entirely straightforward and requires very careful thought. We must look for value for money. I am sure that neither of my hon. Friends would wish to do otherwise. The cost is considerable—up to £100 million. I believe that there is no doubt as to the wisdom of a dual carriageway road between the M1 and Kettering — that is, as far as the A6 — and our investigations to date suggest that dual carriageways can be fully justified over the 25-mile western section of the route between the M1 and the A6 south-east of Kettering. There was always the probability that if we had opted for a single carriageway solution there we should have had to upgrade it to dual carriageway at some future time. The expected volume of traffic, the nature of the terrain and the large number of bridge structures required meant that the bridges would have had to be constructed from the outset to cope with dual carriageways, not to mention additional earthworks to provide for safe overtaking on a single carriageway. The cost of all that made it economically preferable to build a dual carriageway for the western section from the outset.
On the other hand, the terrain east of Kettering does not entail those difficulties and, until we had completed our most recent surveys, the expected level of traffic would not have justified a dual carriageway solution on economic grounds. Prima facie the results of the surveys make a case for such a solution, although it is not yet clear to me that it is a conclusive case. That is one of the reasons why we 221 are still studying it. I hope to reach a decision in the very near future. I am impressed by the case for dualling throughout, though there are possible disadvantages.
There are several factors in favour. First, traffic in the eastern counties and along this route is likely to grow faster than the national average, as both my hon. Friends and many others have pointed out. Secondly, if the Government's proposals for the third London airport at Stansted are approved the level of traffic will be even greater. There is also the still speculative but nevertheless real possibility of the Wonderworld leisure complex at Corby. Thirdly, Corby is developing rapidly and we know that industrially its transport needs are road oriented. Fourthly, the haven ports are expanding and 90 per cent. of their freight tonnage will be by road. With the eastern counties, the main beneficiaries of a high quality dual carriageway road will be the midlands and the north-west. Against that l must set the extra cost of dualling the road east of Kettering at some £20 million—an increase of 25 per cent.—which makes the economic case for that solution more difficult to substantiate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West knows that that was not straightforward in the first place. There is the possibility of going ahead with a single carriageway scheme east of Kettering on the basis that it could be dualled later if traffic levels justified our doing so.
I am conscious that delay does nobody any good. It certainly does not help my post bag or bring us to the public inquiries more quickly. In reaching a decision, we must take account of all of the arguments. I accept that there is an extremely attractive argument in favour of constructing the road to dual standard throughout its length. I am impressed with those arguments and although there are some possible drawbacks which have delayed a final decision, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West that I shall make a decision as speedily as possible and that I do not intend to keep the House or my hon. Friends waiting long for a decision. I thank them for raising the issue.