HC Deb 14 November 1983 vol 48 cc698-704

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

10.13 pm
Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove)

I welcome the opportunity of adding to the congratulations that I was able to offer to my hon. Friend the Minister of State this afternoon on her appointment and thanking her for the care and interest she takes in road users and people affected by roads. Roads are important to people, as has been recognised in the package introduced in response to representations about the Armitage report. This has lead to a commitment for the construction of bypasses. Roads are important also to firms whose costs and distribution are most closely affected by the state and extent of the road network.

I claim that in my constituency, with a motorway under construction, with bypasses sorely needed and my home being shaken to bits by the rumble of heavy lorries, I have considerable experience of the road network, and I welcome the opportunity of bringing the points to the attention of the House and the Minister. To put this matter into perspective, my reason for raising this matter is primarily as part of the fight back by the west midlands.

We are the main manufacturing area and the road network is needed to enable our firms to compete equally with firms in other regions that have better road access and to give them access to the east and south coast ports which are industries' main export outlets.

It is important to put into context the fact that the west midlands has the lowest GDP per head in the country and that our wages are the second lowest, reflecting that performance. It is vital that we take every opportunity to put our industry on a competitive footing.

I make no apology for dealing first with the subject of motorways. The importance of access for the location of industrial investment and the suitability of the west midlands for investment has been emphasised recently in discussion by Belgian and American specialists in industrial location. With the Government spending money on industrial estates and derelict land clearance in the black country, and with the location of the enterprise zone in Dudley—whatever one may think about that initiative—it is important to ensure adequate access to secure the development of those areas and the swift and cheap transit of materials in and products out. Otherwise, there is a grave fear that the hoped for investment will not take place, thus nullifying the money that the Government will have spent on infrastructure.

Great importance is attached to the so-called black country motorway. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will be able to respond about the progress that is being made on the proposals for private investment and construction of that access. The more important industrial routes and access are the A1-M1 link and the M40. There has been considerable public anxiety in the west midlands about the slippage of that programme.

We were promised a motorway-standard route to the east coast ports to be completed by 1977. The line of that route has not yet been settled. I gather that discussions are still taking place about the standard to which it is to be built. Any length of single carriageway on that route would negate the purposes for which the road is being built. It would lead to unimaginable tailbacks and make it difficult for heavy lorries and their drivers to complete a round trip to the coast within the eight hours permitted under the regulations.

The road will need to be at least dual carriageway throughout its length if it is to be of assistance. I urge that the line be taken through the Kettering area rather than accept the proposal to make use of the A45 via Northampton in view of the heavy overloading on the M1 south of the M6 junction. That overloading is a potent reason for pressing ahead with the construction of the M40, the main purpose of which is to provide our firms with access to south coast ports for interocean trade.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has played a prominent part in the M42 support campaign. As he has urged, the construction of that motorway would bring much-needed relief to countless older market towns, small towns and villages that are oppressed by heavy traffic that is entirely unsuitable for the road network. Those roads are part of the production line of British Leyland, taking engines from the midlands down to Oxford for assembly. It is an important lifeline for the midlands. I hope that we shall hear something about the Government's intentions for the construction programme.

Inside the region, the motorway network is still defective. There is still a shortfall in the proposals for the M42 between the north of Tamworth and Nottingham. However, more important is the need to provide some relief for the M6, which is already heavily overloaded north of the M5 junction. There is grave doubt, reinforced by reports in the press today, about the safety and stability of the viaducts and parapets on that route. The consequences would be almost impossible to comprehend if traffic had to be restricted for reasons of safety on that section of the route. The provisions of a relief route should be urgently examined. It could run from the junction of the M54 with the M6 through to Curdworth and thence to Coleshill.

I shall leave the subject of the motorway network and refer to the people's need for roads, particularly bypasses. Local authorities are facing difficulties in constructing bypasses that many people believe they were promised under the Armitage package of proposals. I quote examples from my constituency only because they are within my personal knowledge. The M42 is due to be constructed as far as the A441 by September 1985, but no finance is yet available for the bypass of Alvechurch, which is to be constructed by the local authority.

Similarly, the A456 through Hagley is the heaviest used principal road in the whole region. During my time as an hon. Member, there have been many accidents on the Hagley mile and at the bottom of the hill by the traffic lights, which have caused justifiable alarm to the inhabitants. At present there is no prospect of the construction of that much-needed bypass. The general public naturally assumed that both bypasses were to be constructed as part of the Armitage proposals.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer (Wyre Forest)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury method of accounting is anachronistic and makes it extremely difficult for the forward planning of many bypasses?

Mr. Miller

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose difficulties in Kidderminster I recall. I am coming to local authority financing of roads and the constrictions placed on it by the Government's implementation of the programme under the transport supplementary grant and the rate support grant, with the accompanying penalties. The British Road Federation has done considerable research into the effect of the Government's implementation of that method of financing. It has shown that since the imposition of penalties there has been a severe fall-off in capital expenditure on roads by local authorities although there has been some increase in support of public transport expenditure. The reason appears to be that put forward in the publication entitled: Local authority roads and their financing". This matter is confirmed in conversations that I have had in the past 10 days with my county surveyor and bridgemaster. Local authorities are afraid of the revenue consequences of their capital spend as the interest paid is not an acceptable charge for purposes of the TSG, but also renders local authorities liable to rate support grant penalties if their GRE is exceeded.

Maintenance requirements of the newly constructed road fall to be met out of recurrent expenditure which makes county treasurers doubly careful of their GRE and the penalty to which they might be liable. The position is difficult. The truth of what I am saying can be illustrated by the dramatic fall in net local authority borrowing which from 1980–81 fell by more than £2 billion from £2.287 billion to a mere £7 million in the following year.

In those two years, there has been a shortfall on Government planned expenditure. Although Government planned expenditure increased by 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. the actual expenditure fell. I am trying to explain the reasons for that shortfall as they appear to my local authority and to the British Road Federation. This is a serious matter. People will not see the bypasses constructed which they felt they had a right to expect.

We must remember the preponderant role played by such principal and de-trunked routes when dealing with traffic movement. The position has been made worse in my county by the de-trunking of the A38 where that road has been bypassed. The question of when trunk roads should be de-trunked is the subject of a theological argument. The Ministry appear to take the view that this should happen when it has constructed an alternative route as in the case of the M5. This has meant that the A38 has been subject to de-trunking. A widening programme of the M5 is in hand, but that means that the present A38 must still function as a trunk route whereas the local authority has lost a great deal of capital fund because of the de-trunking of the Droitwich and Bromsgrove bypasses.

I see that my hon. Friend the Minister is shaking her head, but I have been informed by the county surveyor this afternoon that the de-trunking cost is represented by the difference between 70 per cent. TSG payable for a principal route and 100 per cent. payable for a trunk route. The local authority envisages a cost arising as a result of the de-trunking.

To put this matter into context, traffic increase in the last 20 years of the century is expected to be 23 per cent. on the lowest figures of GDP forecast and as much as 50 per cent. on the higher figures.

I have raised this subject because of my concern about the competitive position of west midlands industry, the credibility of the Governments bypass programme and the need to restore capital spend, rather than favouring recurrent expenditure, which seems to have been the effect of Government policies to date.

10.29 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) for his kind remarks and apologise if, inadvertently, I omitted to thank him during Question Time.

I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss the important topic of roads in the west midlands. I listened with great interest and much sympathy to the arguments put forward on behalf of the region. Of course, our industry throughout the country needs more and better roads to enable it to improve its competitiveness.

My hon. Friend referred to the BRF report "West Midland Road Needs", in which it is claimed that the missing links in the west midlands motorway and road networks are delaying the region's economic revival. We all know that economics are a complex issue and I do not discount the belief that good roads are one of the important factors, but I hope that our policy is well-known and I remind the House of the opening paragraph of the 1980 roads White Paper: The first priority of the Government is national economic recovery. The road programme has to be judged in that context. We have to strike a balance. New road schemes can bring undoubted economic advantages. Exports can reach their markets more quickly; goods can be distributed more efficiently; traffic can flow more easily and fuel can be saved. At the same time, substantial environmental benefits can be gained. Heavy lorries can be taken round cities, towns and villages. People can be freed from the noise, the disturbance and the danger of traffic confined to inadequate roads. Those priorities have been reviewed and reinforced in our 1983 roads White Paper, issued only in September.

I have found somewhat disconcerting the view that there has been lengthy, positive discrimination against the west midlands over the rate of investment in roads. That is not shown by the detailed records. In recent years, our highest priority has been the M25, but we needed the orbital route round London so that transport from the west midlands could get to the south coast ports. By linking up all the major routes radiating from the capital, we assist all the other regions and we are, therefore, surely doing part of what the west midlands needs.

I understand why the anxieties exist. We have given priority to the M25, but that has not meant that schemes elsewhere, which have shown good value for money, have been left unattended. Preparation work for a considerable programme is coming to fruition. I mentioned at Question time the fact that new roads in the west midlands, to a total value of £260 million, are either being built, or will be started, before the end of next year. That is a considerable proportion of our planned expenditure over the next few years.

My hon. Friend started by talking about motorways. He knows that the M54 linking Telford to the M6 and, therefore, generally improving communications between the midlands and central and north Wales, as well as supporting the new town itself, will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later this month. We have started work on the M42 Bromsgrove section and will soon start on the M42 Tamworth section. The first two lengths of widening the M5 to three lanes from Lydiate Ash to Warndon on the edge of Worcester are also in hand.

My hon. Friend referred to the Ml-Al link. He knows how concerned I am about that route. The fact that the original proposals provided only for single carriageway east of Kettering attracted a considerable number of objections and representations. I am considering whether dual carriageways on that length can be justified. I hope that even if the decision is taken to amend the scheme to give dual carriageway throughout, the start of construction, planned for 1986, will not be delayed.

The programme does not stop there, but it would be impossible in the time available to reply to all the points raised by my hon. Friend. I shall write to him about the matters that I cannot cover tonight. He mentioned the A42—the northward extension of the M42. It is just outside his constituency boundary, but I think that he knows that I published last week revised proposals for the A42 Castle Donington section to complete the new Birmingham-Nottingham route between the end of the M42 and the M1 at Kegworth.

I think that my hon. Friend knows that whatever we say about a route programme it is subject to the usual caveat about the completion of statutory procedures. Often, however much Ministers want to help hon. Members, there is nothing that we can do about the sometimes prolonged statutory procedures. They are long and complex, but they are an essential part of our democratic system. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and for Transport would not want to reach their decisions without the benefit of an independent assessment and a public inquiry when there were representations and objections to be heard.

We have and must continue to have constraints. We cannot spend without having a policy of how much should be spent in a year. We have tried to tighten up the management preparation of road schemes. I am shortly to receive from the National Economic Development Office a copy of the report on road preparation procedure which it has commissioned from Lord Vaizey. It might enable us to be even more expert in our planning of schemes for the future.

I have so far mentioned only the biggest schemes in the trunk road programme. Perhaps I should also mention other schemes within the £114 million-worth of work that is now going on. There are essential bypasses on the A41 for Hinstock and Newport, others on the A564 from Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter to avoid bottlenecks on the A50 and the grade separation junction on the A38 at Alrewas in Staffordshire, which will contribute to the Birmingham-Derby route. Those developments are vitally important for different parts of the west midlands. Many more schemes are in preparation. They include bypasses of Stratford-on-Avon and Evesham, the Alcester bypass which is to come later and the other A435 proposals which will give better access from the Coventry, Warwick and Leamington area to the south-west. They are most important to my hon. Friend.

A public inquiry is now going on into draft orders for the Coventry eastern bypass to extend the A46 high standard route to link with the M69 and the M6. Many other recently published orders show how much emphasis we put on the economic recovery that my hon. Friend and other colleagues want for the west midlands. Other schemes are in the early stages of preparation. Arterial routes such as the M42 and the M40 will receive priority consideration by my Department. The public inquiry on the M40 is closed, but the inspector has not yet reported to Ministers.

Nobody who has been responsible for the road network in the past 18 months, as I have, underestimates the important role of bypasses. We are trying, in so far as funds allow, to get as many bypasses as possible built, whether it be through the trunk road network or through the TSG and county councils.

For the economic good of the country, we must not spend more than we can afford. It would be crazy to do so as we should cut short the economic recovery in the west midlands. In 1983–84, for the five county councils in the west midlands, the accepted transport programme will cost £171 million, including capital programmes of £51 million. The five councils will receive a total of £27 million of grant to support those programmes. It is being used to build new roads in Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Walsall and Oldbury in the conurbation, and in Worcester, Tamworth, Bridgnorth and Nuneaton in the shires.

It has been suggested that local authorities cannot fulfil their capital programmes because of the constraints on their revenue expenditure implied in the targets and in the rate support grant hold-back arrangements. On a national level, of course, the provision for local authorities' revenue expenditure is compatible with the expenditure targets set by the Department of the Environment. The provision recognises that capital expenditure has revenue consequences. The levels of TSG capital accepted expenditure are consistent with the Government's overall expenditure plans, and the amounts accepted for individual councils are based on councils'own bids in their TPPs. We sometimes forget that. Inevitably, individual councils have to budget and plan carefully but with careful budgeting and planning it is possible to finance the accepted transport capital programmes and, indeed, other capital programmes, within the revenue expenditure targets. My hon. Friend may have put his finger on the point when he alluded to the expenditure on some public transport facility which might have been spent on improving the road network, about which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Bulmer) spoke.

Mr. Bulmer

There are two problems. The first is how councils can carry their money forward at the end of the financial year and not have to spend it if the weather is bad. The second is the sheer difficulty of budgeting forward on what may be a very expensive scheme, riot knowing for how many years it will be necessary to do it.

Mrs. Chalker

I understand the problem. We have sought to help in a number of ways by allowing a small roll-over at the end of the year, which will happen in the coming spring for the first time. That is well known. The difficulty is that very often, because we do not specify exactly how the grant is spent, the money put into TSG does not always go to the projects to which the Government have given the highest priority.

There is no way in which I can deal with all the matters raised by my hon. Friends. I well understand the problems of the A38 in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. The fact that the full length of the road has not been detrunked is more a reflection of the local highway authority's reluctance, which we understand, to assume responsibility than of any wish of my Department to retain it. There are exceptions to detrunking, which my hon. Friend himself mentioned. Where there is a better road that takes the heavy traffic, we always believe that it is right for the Department to take the trunking responsibility for that new stretch. That is usually the reason for the detrunking of old and less used stretches of road.

However quickly I may have had to rush through the matters raised by my hon. Friend, my speech would not be complete without a reference to slippage.

My hon. Friend mentioned especially the M1-A1 link, which is so important. It is very often findings about the ground surface, as happened in this case, which can set back the route of a line. But we are well organised to proceed on that.

The Government are concerned to ensure that the motorway and trunk road network is designed to serve the country's economic needs. That means the locally planned roads, too. That our road programme matches that concern is borne out by further figures. The total value of the schemes in our main programme to March 1985 is £717 million. Of that figure, schemes in the west midlands total £151 million, or 21 per cent.

I shall continue to press on hard with the preparation of the schemes that are necessary, but I must make sure that we plan within achievable limits, that we do not give false expectations and that we are able to achieve the programme dates in our programme to get the roads finished to serve west midlands industry. We then all know where we are, and that is the way to plan sensibly for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.