§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
§ 10 pm
§ Mr. Richard Ryder (Mid-Norfolk)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for being present to answer the debate. Her wide knowledge of Norfolk's special road problems has impressed all of us who represent the county's constituencies. By the end of the debate I hope that she will be left in no doubt about the sense of grievance felt by Norfolk people over the quality of our major trunk roads. I hope, too, that she will be left in no doubt about our resolve to secure a fairer deal for the country in future.
The myth applied to Norfolk is of a county of people living an insular existence who resent the intrusion of trade and are content with their deficient road links with the remainder of Britain. But the myth is a far cry from the reality. The reality of Norfolk is of a county whose population is growing about 20 times faster than the average of other British counties and whose prosperity overwhelmingly depends upon its industry and commerce.
Successive Governments have swallowed the romantic myth but ignored the harder reality. Now we ask the Government to signal a change of emphasis and a recognition that Norfolk's industrial and commercial concerns require better trunk roads to link them with suppliers and customers in the midlands and the south.
Norfolk is practically the only county in England not to be joined by high quality road communications—by which I mean dual carriageways—to the main motorway network. Alas, the picture will not be drastically altered when the current road programme, to which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will refer, has been finished.
I shall give a few details of Norfolk's appalling problem. The distance from Great Yarmouth to the Newmarket bypass down the A11 is 70 miles; from Norwich it is 45 miles. Even after the completion of the Attleborough bypass, only four miles will be dual carriageway.
The picture is just as miserable on the east-west roads through the county. The distance from Great Yarmouth to the A1 at Newark, a vital freight route, is about 128 miles, of which 74 are in Norfolk and only seven are dual carriageway.
The trunk road improvement programme, welcome though it is, has come too late in the day and merely scratches the surface of the problem. The county will be permanently disadvantaged as a result. For example, dismay has been expressed that the Attleborough bypass is being built mostly as a single carriageway, and that the Thetford bypass will be, too.
The robust campaign of the Eastern Daily Press has highlighted the anger felt throughout Norfolk about the inadequacies of our major trunk roads. It worries me that the anger has been voiced most strongly by enterprising business men who are trying to create extra jobs for Norfolk people. Yet that anger does not surprise me. The largest town in my constituency is East Dereham, the centre of Norfolk. Its unemployment rate is higher than the national average. During the past two months I have visited several factories in the town, and everywhere I have heard the same complaints about the poor major trunk roads which hamper the growth of many of these firms. 98 Recently, I have been pleading with small business men and entrepreneurs from outside the county to start up in Dereham. Their replies invariably take similar forms. They acknowledge that Norfolk councils do their best to keep industrial costs down; they acknowledge the reliability of Norfolk's work force; and they acknowledge that Norfolk offers numerous attractions. Then comes the inevitable "but". They regret that the poor quality of Norfolk's road communications with other parts of Britain would prevent them from bringing in raw materials and moving finished products out speedily. They then contrast Norfolk's roads with the roads in neighbouring Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.
Road programmes in those two counties have received higher priority than in Norfolk. Dual carriageways link the two counties direct with the south and the midlands and with the continent via Felixstowe. People's reliance on dual carriageways in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire is a matter not of personal convenience, but of economic necessity. Why should Governments have regarded Norfolk as different?
Whether we like it or not, Norfolk's future industrial and commercial success will depend heavily upon the ability of cars and lorries to transport people and goods quickly from office to office and factory gate to factory gate along dual carriageways—which do not exist.
Perhaps the Minister of State will think that I am calling for an increase in public expenditure. That is not so. I am calling for the Department of Transport's resources to be allocated more equitably. Dual carriageways have been lavished on other counties. I make no complaint about that, but I do complain that many of those counties are still receiving better deals than Norfolk.
The efforts over many years of my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins), for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) and for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) have achieved some results, especially with bypasses. I pay tribute to their hard work. Norfolk needs more than bypasses. It needs a modern road network to take account of its growing population and emergence as an industrial and commercial county of the top rank.
I have deliberately kept my speech brief so that my hon. Friends can contribute. All my hon. Friends representing Norfolk constituencies are united in their desire to convince the Department that Norfolk has been overlooked.
I emphasise that I shall strain every political muscle as long as I am in Parliament to try to ensure that Norfolk gets a fairer deal from Governments. I shall do my best to ensure in Whitehall that the myth of Norfolk's rural insularity is replaced with an appreciation of the reality of its commercial existence upon which its future prosperity rests. Lasting prosperity can be secured by improving road links with the remainder of Britain.
§ 10.7 pm
§ Mr. John Powley (Norwich, South)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) for allowing me the opportunity to add my weight to his remarks. I endorse everything that he said about improvements to the road network in Norfolk. I have the honour to represent Norwich, South which, despite its name, covers three quarters of the fine city of Norwich.
Norwich should not be isolated from the rest of the country, but isolated it often seems to be because of the lack of good road communications with the rest of the 99 country. We spend many hours in our constituencies visiting industrial and commercial establishments. Only yesterday I visited Diamond H. Controls Ltd. in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). Many of its employees live in my constituency. I taxed the managing director and his associates about their problems. They stressed the difficulty of getting goods in and out of their factory. Ninety per cent. of the output from that factory is transported by road, either south down the A11 or west along the A47 or A17 to the midlands. That firm tells me, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, that it needs to compete keenly in both home and world markets for the business available. It needs good, efficient, road communications to keep its transportation costs to a minimum so that it can compete efficiently. It produces the right goods at the right price, but it needs to transport them speedily to its customers. It cannot ensure efficient delivery in current circumstances.
One of the largest shoe manufacturers in Norwich—which has seen the demise of that industry—is Bally, which is a world-renowned manufacturer. We are proud of that company. It says that 100 per cent. of its output is transported by road, and it faces similar problems to those that I have already cited. Its drivers are held up because of the lack of good road communications.
The chamber of commerce in my constituency has time and again told me that its members must have better road communications to ensure that their goods are transported efficiently.
We are grateful for the Attleborough bypass. However, I have it on good authority that the lobbying for that bypass, which is due for completion next year, began 16 years ago. That is far too long. I hope that I shall be in this House in 16 years, but I also hope that I shall not then be lobbying for improvements to the A11. I hope that the efforts of myself and my hon. Friends will have borne fruit well before then.
I, like my hon. Friends, do not seek greater public expenditure. However, Norfolk has long been the forgotten arm of Britain in the share of resources. When rate support grants have been discussed in the House I have asked for a better share of the available resources for Norfolk. I support the efforts of my hon. Friends to obtain a greater share of the country's resources to be spent on improving road communications, that will provide safety and better employment prospects for those in my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends.
§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) for allowing me to intervene briefly in the debate. He was right to mention Norfolk's strong industrial base, and also right to talk about the sense of grievance. It needs a far better infrastructure.
King's Lynn is part of that strong industrial base, but it suffered a grievous blow last Friday when GKN Pistons Ltd. announced the closure of its plant with the loss of 143 jobs. We must treble our efforts to attract more firms to that part of Norfolk.
Every time we try to attract new firms, they ask about communications—and, above all, that crucial link with the north and the midlands, the A17 and A47. We need 100 more bypasses and dualling on that route. Likewise, the other main artery into King's Lynn is the A10, but the last stretch of that road is woefully inadequate. There is a desperate need for a bypass around West Winch and Setchey.
Finally, I make two specific pleas to my hon. Friend the Minister of State which I have made to her previously. First, the two roundabouts on the southern King's Lynn bypass have foundations for flyovers. If my hon. Friend had been in my constituency last summer she would have seen huge queues extending for many miles. There is a desperate need for the flyovers to be built now and I urge her not to waste any more time in building them.
My second plea—I have corresponded with my hon. Friend on this issue previously—is that my hon. Friend should recognise the lack of safety on the eastern bypass round King's Lynn. It is a three-lane bypass with a poor safety record. I urge her to consider carefully the possibility of alternate double white lining on that stretch of road.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk in urging a fairer deal for Norfolk's communications, upon which the community and the county survives. Like my hon. Friend, I do not ask for more money.
§ Mr. Ralph Howell (Norfolk, North)I join my hon. Friends in expressing gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) for initiating the debate. It is essential that Norfolk should have a dual road to Norwich. The A11 is one of the most dangerous roads in the county. All the figures in the world will not reveal the facts. The A11 is avoided because it is so dangerous, slow and frustrating. It is high time that Norfolk received its fair share of Government expenditure. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, I am not asking for any extra expenditure from the Department of Transport. My hon. Friends and I are saying that Norfolk should receive the benefit of some modest expenditure, which would provide us with one dual road into the centre of the county at least.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) on securing the debate. I am grateful to him for raising the issue because it provides an opportunity for me to hear again his views and those of his hon. Friends on the problems of Norfolk's roads. As I have said, this is not the first time that I have heard about them. I am well aware of the problems.
Norfolk Members have been assiduous for years in chasing up successive Ministers to increase the expenditure on the roads in the county. The work of my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who is now the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) and for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) and more recently that of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Norfolk and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) is now coming to fruition. I ask them to remember that by the end of the 1980s we shall have spent £159 million on 28 trunk road schemes to the benefit 101 of Norfolk. The hard work of my hon. Friends over some years is coming to fruition, but I, like them, am impatient to see results.
I am acutely aware of the growing frustration of the many interests which believe that substantial expenditure on Norfolk's trunk roads and links is long overdue and that economic activity is suffering as a result. Perhaps they see Norfolk as a poor relation when it comes to investment in new and improved roads. The contents of my postbag over the past few months and the vigorous campaign by the local media leave me in no doubt about feelings within the county.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friends that the Department does not regard Norfolk as a poor relation. On the contrary, it is a most important county. There has been a rapid growth in trade with Europe, and this market accounts for 43 per cent. of our exports. This has brought about a dramatic growth of traffic through the east coast ports. That is one of the factors that has led to a significant growth in road traffic in all the eastern counties over the past decade when compared with the rates of growth in the rest of England.
In the 1970s my predecessors made a conscious decision to concentrate resources on improving the A12 and A45 routes to provide high standard links from the Midlands and the London area to the rapidly developing ports of Harwich and Felixstowe and on building the M11 between London and Cambridge. That work is virtually complete, but the programme has meant that until a few years ago the roads further north in Norfolk did not have quite the same priority. Now they do.
Norfolk MPs have been active in ensuring that many useful improvements have been completed. Many are in progress, and many more are to come. The changes in the developments taking place in the county, particularly at Great Yarmouth, are notable. Twice this year I have travelled right up the A11 to see for myself the state of the road. In August, I saw the rapidly developing port at Great Yarmouth and how it is expanding its facilities for the rapid and efficient movement of goods to and from Europe.
I recognise the substantial growth in activity of the offshore oil and gas industries and the way in which they are bringing in extra traffic, especially lorries and tankers, to the A47, the A11 and the A17. All those developments, together with others at Lowestoft and King's Lynn as well as in the regional capital at Norwich, reinforce what my hon. Friends have asked for—good communications to allow healthy and efficient growth to take place. We recognise the crucial role that good roads play.
Although previous Administrations gave priority to Felixstowe and Harwich, in 1980 we accepted, with a special mention in the White Paper, Cmnd. 7908, at paragraph 154, the local view that particular importance should be attached to the route from Newmarket to Norwich and onwards to Great Yarmouth. That meant giving high priority to improvements on the A11, A17 and A47 trunk road routes in the county.
We have maintained our trunk road commitment, despite the difficult economic climate since 1980. In that climate, while all public spending has been rigorously scrutinised, we have managed to sustain the momentum of the road programme. This year, in England as a whole, we plan to spend £805 million on trunk roads—an increase of about 13 per cent. in real terms over spending in 1983–84. Even so, there remain more claims on spending 102 than resources to meet them, and I must look carefully at proposals for additional work in earlier years than planned in the programme. I accept that none of my hon. Friends has asked for extra resources, but I think they know that to advance certain roads in the programme could increase the annual expenditure beyond the limits to which I am able to go.
I acknowledge that much still needs to be done, but the present programme provides for the construction o 128 schemes by the end of the 1980s, with a total value at 1982 prices of £159 million. All those improvements will be of direct benefit to Norfolk. Results are already being seen, with bypasses open on the A17 west of King's Lynn, on the A47 at Wisbech, King's Lynn, Swaffhani, East Dereham and Blofield, and that progress is being maintained. On the A11, the Attleborough bypass is under construction, and I am glad to report that it should be ready in the spring, in advance of the planned date. A public inquiry into the Wymondham-Cringleford improvement started today, and the Thetford bypass inquiry should start next March.
On the A17 in Lincolnshire, which is important to Norfolk, the Swineshead bypass is under construction, and draft orders for two further schemes are to be published soon. On the A47, the northern section of the Great Yarmouth bypass including a new lifting bridge over Breydon Water is under construction. The Wisbech and West Walton bypass was opened to traffic earlier this year. The preparation of draft orders for the Norwich southern bypass is well in hand.
I know that, despite the progress we have made, hon. Members are concerned that we are not providing as much dual carriageway as they would like, especialy on the A11. I have received many letters questioning in particular the single carriageway standard proposed for the Thetford bypass and expressing the view that it should be built as a dual carriageway. Some have said that the whole of the A11 should be improved to dual carriageway standard.
I realise that this is seen by many as a critical factor in the ability of Norfolk's industry and commerce to compete effectively. New roads are, however, expensive. They use up land—often good agricultural land—and I must be certain that they do not absorb more in resources than is strictly justified. They must provide a good return on investment. I am sure that my hon. Friends would not wish it to be otherwise.
The standard adopted for the improvement of any particular stretch of road, new road or bypass depends on a number of factors. The expected volume of traffic on that stretch of road is obviously the most influential. I must be clear about one point, however. We do not provide a particular standard of road because the road has a particular status or because the road happens to be a trunk road. We try to meet the likely need rather than provide uniformity. That is common sense. It means that we take into account the comings and goings, as it were, of traffic on those roads because not all stretches of the A11, A17 or A47 are trafficked to the same degree. We are trying to provide the road to meet the need, rather than uniformity.
My hon. Friends will also understand why it is crucial to avoid over-provision. To build a road to a standard higher than is necessary to carry predicted traffic flows efficiently and in safety has one immediate effect. That 103 effect is to deprive other hard-pressed communities of any form of relief from through traffic, because the resources will not be there.
I have to consider Norfolk, in particular, tonight and over the next few years, but I cannot forget other areas of the country which need their bypasses or on-line improvements. Some of these have worse accident records than the roads that have been mentioned tonight. I say that because every accident is one that we wish that we had not had. There are some pretty bad black spots around the country with which we have to deal. I am glad to say that they are not all in Norfolk.
Our current programme for the A11 will make a material difference to the quality of that route. The programme includes some 15 miles of dual carriageway programmed for completion in the next few years—mostly between Attleborough and Norwich, where a substantial volume of local traffic joins more distant traffic so increasing traffic figures significantly, but also from Barton Mills in Suffolk southward towards Newmarket. At Thetford each White Paper since 1980 has quite clearly signalled our intention to build a single carriageway bypass. That is because the traffic volume we expect on that stretch of the A11 will not reach the level which would justify consideration of duals. The shortfall is not marginal; it is significant. But what we do propose is to provide a crawler lane south and northbound for traffic approaching the junction with the A134. That tackles one of the main problems along the bypass.
In addition to all that we are trying to do on trunk roads for Norfolk, I am conscious of the role that local roads play. That is why the Government have supported the county council's efforts to improve its major roads, to bypass towns like Stoke Ferry and Fakenham, and 104 improvements in urban roads such as those in Norwich, King's Lynn and Great Yarmouth. Over the past five years we have accepted £28 million of capital expenditure for transport supplementary grant. This year, 1984–85, it reached 93 per cent. of Norfolk's bid. It is certainly improving.
I note that some of the large new road schemes have been postponed by Norfolk county council in the past year. Any postponement has a long-term effect, but I hope that in the years ahead it will be able to get on with its roads.
I am glad to see that in its 1985–86 transport policies and programmes the council shows itself able to start the Downham Market bypass, delayed from 1983–84, and the Fakenham bypass, delayed from 1984–85, and that two A143 bypasses are lined up for 1986–87.
I entirely recognise the concern felt about the adequacy of the A11 and other roads. I am struck by the helpful debate tonight. We have two questions to answer. The first is whether local factors greatly increase the expected volume of traffic. The second relates to the concern expressed about frustration.
May I give the House a pledge? As part of my general duty to keep the adequacy of the trunk road network under review, I shall be looking at those stretches of the A11 currently without schemes in the trunk road programme to see how remaining problems may be tackled and, in particular, whether there is a case for a limited length of dual carriageway which might prevent a build-up of long platoons of slow-moving traffic.
My hon. Friends will understand that I must be careful not to raise false hopes, but I can assure them that I shall do my best to ensure that all Norfolk's roads are decent and adequate.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at half past Ten o'clock.