§ Mr. John Prescott(by private notice) (Kingston upon Hull, East)asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the safety of the Severn bridge.
§ The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)Since the Severn crossing was opened in 1966 it has carried some 160 million vehicles. It has been closed entirely only once and then on account of exceptionally high winds. In 1979, following some concern about maintenance and loading problems, the Flint and Neill Partnership was asked to make a comprehensive engineering appraisal of the main bridge. The partnership reported in June 1982 that, subject to certain qualifications, the main cables, piers and anchorages were adequate to cope with current traffic loadings, but that the towers, tower saddles, hangers and rocker boxes would need strengthening to enable them to cope with the highest existing traffic loadings.
Since March 1982, one lane in each direction has been closed every weekday from 4 to 8 am to deal with the safety problem. In May 1983, the consultants submitted a further report in which, after extending their appraisal to the entire crossing, they concluded that it would be technically feasible to strengthen the crossing to enable it to carry, without restrictions on the flow of traffic, considerably higher loads than at present. The report put forward alternative engineering options for achieving a higher loading standard. Those options are being urgently evaluated and examined in detail.
In accordance with normal departmental practice, Mott, Hay and Anderson were appointed by Flint and Neill to make an independent check of the latter's appraisal of the bridge superstructure. The report on the independent check has now been submitted to Flint and Neill, and I await their further advice. In the meantime, I have considered it prudent to extend the early morning lane restrictions to round the clock, except at weekends. I expect to be able to decide within the next fortnight whether it will be necessary to continue those additional restrictions.
I am satisfied that the crossing is safe to use.
§ Mr. PrescottI welcome the Secretary of State's statement, but it does not do much to allay our concern about the bridge. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the growing concern about the safety of box constructed bridges, such as the Severn and the Humber bridges, continues unabated since the collapse of the Yarrow and the Milford Haven bridges during construction, and since the increase in the building safety standard, imposed since 1975, which led to the strengthening of the Severn bridge since 1977? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his Department's policy has contributed to the increasing stress by its agreement to increase the sizes of juggernauts which have ripped open our motorways and now threaten our bridges.
Moreover, the Department's statements have increased the concern, since the Commissioning of the Flint and Neill report in 1979, which he now says he received in June 1982, and only publicly released in May 1983, confirming the serious reduction in safety standards on the Severn bridge. However, in an Adjournment debate last Friday, 742 the Minister of State, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who did the House a service in exposing this matter, said that my hon. Friend was being alarmist and that we did not have to rush our evaluation of the reports. However, we know from a statement made by the Minister of State on Monday that the restrictions were increased from that evening to 24 hours a day.
Will the Secretary of State now conduct a public examination into the safety issues that are involved in the design and the consultants' differing judgments about the deterioration of safety? Will he consider abolishing all the tolls on the Severn bridge that lead to the bunching of traffic and increase the stress on the bridge? Will he further assure the House that the estimated cost of £33 million that is needed to improve the safety and life of the bridge will not be hindered by any public expenditure consideration on this vital link for the Welsh economy?
§ Mr. RidleyI confirm that the safety of the bridge must be a paramount consideration. That is why, in the light of the apparent doubt that has been thrown upon it by the partial quotation of the report from the consultants Mott, Hay, and Anderson by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on Friday afternoon, I judged it right to reassure the public by closing one lane in each direction. That is not a final decision, because until the two firms of consultants have had time to put together their views and opinions, and produce, I hope, an agreed report to me, I cannot judge exactly what they say. The House must await their final report before a decision can be taken. It is right in the intervening period of perhaps a fortnight to reassure the public by ensuring that the loading on the bridge could not be excessive during that time. I am sorry if it results in some congestion for motorists.
I know of no parallel with other bridges. The experts on the Severn bridge will consider the matter on its merits. It is quite wrong to insinuate that, because there have been problems with other bridges in other parts of the world, those problems necessarily apply here. Nor do I accept that the heavier lorries now on our roads are in any sense part of the problem. Traffic in general has increased, and we want to make sure that the bridge will be adequate to carry the traffic that it has to carry.
I therefore reject the need for an inquiry at this stage. An examination has been put into effect, and when I receive the result of that in a fortnight's time I shall be in a position to make the final decision.
I give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman sought that the cost of any necessary repairs will be met as rapidly as possible, once we are certain about what is the right thing to do out of public funds.
§ Mr. Paul Marland (Gloucestershire, West)This afternoon's announcement by my right hon. Friend will be greeted with some concern in my constituency, especially in the Forest of Dean, because every time there are traffic restrictions on the Severn bridge more and more traffic is forced on to the A48, which runs through the Forest of Dean. That road urgently needs more bypasses round the towns, as well as some improvements. For many years the Gloucestershire county council and I have pressed the Department of Transport for higher priority to be given to this road. In view of this afternoon's announcement, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to upgrade the importance of improvements to the A48?
§ Mr. RidleyI congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity, and I recognise the importance of the problems that he raises. However, the restrictions may last only a fortnight. I imposed them only to give total reassurance to the traffic using the bridge. Once we have the full report I hope that it will be possible to open both lanes on the Severn bridge, in which case my hon. Friend's problem will miraculously drain away, for which I am sure he will be extremely glad.
§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South and Penarth)I do not think that the public will be totally reassured by the Minister's statement. Only the qualified views of expert engineers will set some of their anxieties at rest. In addition to listening to the valuable suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), would not the Minister agree—in view of the increase in traffic to which he referred, which has been noticed by those of us who travel on the bridge— that it is time to begin the preparations for a second bridge to take the increase? Such a project would also provide employment.
§ Mr. RidleyBy closing one lane in each direction, we halve the loading on the bridge when it is coping with traffic jams and heavy lorries, and thus double the safety factor. Until we get the experts' report, there is no way in which we could give travellers greater reassurance.
If a second crossing proves to be necessary, it will have to be built, but we must await the result of the experts' investigation into the existing crossing. I shall certainly inform the House of the experts' view of the capacity of the present bridge. A new bridge will take at least 10 years to construct. If we build one, we must make sure that we have made the right decision.
§ Mr. Rob Hayward (Kingswood)I thank my right hon. Friend for the speed with which he is providing the answers. Given the technicalities of the inquiry, a fortnight is a short time. However, is not my right hon. Friend concerned about the reference made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to the Milford Haven bridge and to box girder bridges? That will add to the anxieties of those crossing the bridge, but in fact there is no parallel. The box girder bridges that have collapsed have done so when they were under construction, not when they had been completed.
§ Mr. RidleyI am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I would not dare, with my engineering experience, to dilate on that subject; I would infinitely prefer first to receive the report. The differences between the Flint and Neill report and the Mott, Hay and Anderson report are not very great. They are differences of emphasis. When the two firms have discussed each other's reports and given me a joint conclusion, the House may find that the risk is not as great as has been feared in many quarters.
§ Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East)There has much concern in south Wales about the state of the bridge even before the Mott, Hay and Anderson report was divulged. The full facts should be made public as soon as they are available. Will the Secretary of State confirm, therefore, that the further independent report will also be made available to the public as soon as it has been handed to him? Is it not time that the Secretary of State committed himself to the idea of a second crossing of the Severn?
§ Mr. RidleyMott, Hay and Anderson will report to the main consultants, Flint and Neill, not to me. Their report will not come to me until the two firms have discussed their joint findings. The hon. Gentleman's partial and selective publication of a leaked copy was not at all helpful and not in the public interest. When he sees the size of the documents, he will realise how difficult it is to justify quoting a few sentences. The result of his indiscretion has been that I have had to close one lane each way, for which the people of Wales will not thank him. I hope that it will be possible very soon to lift the restrictions.
§ Mr. Mark Robinson (Newport, West)Does my hon. Friend recognise what damage some of these alarmist reports are doing, particularly when they are read in industries that are hoping to move into south Wales? When his review has been completed—in a fortnight's time, we hope—will he undertake to lay this matter to rest so that we can debate the Severn bridge again in a normal fashion rather than in the scaremongering tone of the past week?
§ Mr. RidleyI agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I wish that the action I have taken had not been necessary, but my hon. Friend will agree that, in view of what was said last Friday, it was right for me to make safety the first consideration.
§ Mr. Geraint Howells (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North)As part of the bridge is now closed and in a fortnight's time the consultants may recommend the closure of the bridge, what alternative plans does the Secretary of State's Department have for the south Wales economy?
§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)Sink or swim.
§ Mr. RidleyThat question is so hypothetical that I have not even thought of the answer.
§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)In his capacity as Secretary of State for Transport, would my right hon. Friend point out that those who might be frightened to travel across the bridge could use British Rail, which still maintains an excellent service through a tunnel built many years ago? In view of the relative safety of rail as against road travel, might it not, in principle, be a good idea to put British Rail engineers in charge of building road bridges?
§ Mr. RidleyI congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity, too. I can assure him that I have no plans to ask consultants to investigate the safety of the tunnel under the Severn.
§ Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside)If the right hon. Gentleman had been as conscientious in this matter as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), this mess would not have arisen. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about my hon. Friend were disgraceful, and they will not be well received in Wales.
If the Severn bridge is closed, the south Wales economy will be decimated. South Wales already suffers from mass unemployment, and the closure of the bridge would undermine recent efforts to build a modern economy. Would not the building of a second crossing greatly boost employment prospects in the construction industry in south Wales?
If the Government are to get a grip on the situation, they must now guarantee to the House that there will be joint 745 ministerial responsibility. The Welsh Office should no longer be the junior partner. Because of ministerial ineptitude, the south Wales economy is now in peril. It was sad to see the Minister of State, Welsh Office humiliated at the Dispatch Box yesterday. He had not been told what was happening.
§ Mr. RidleyThe hon. Gentleman will not get far with that line. My Department keeps in very close touch with our colleagues in the Welsh Office. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are in very close touch on all such matters. If I had needed to be reminded, they would have reminded me of the vast importance of nurturing the rebirth of Welsh industry and the Welsh economy, which is the reason for my great concern that the crossing should be kept open as fully as possible. In that respect, the partial leaking of a technical report was very damaging to the future of the Welsh economy. Highly technical engineering reports which have not yet been harmonised or agreed should be kept where they belong until advice comes before the Minister. That advice will always be published.