HC Deb 01 December 1986 vol 106 cc741-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. Garet-Jones.]

11.53 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

The A525 is a road that forms an east-west primary route link between Madeley and Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent in the east, and Burleydam, Whitchurch and Wrexham in the west. It passes through the village of Audlem in my constituency.

I wish tonight to tell the House about what can only be called a series of accidents. I raise the matter precisely because I am considerably concerned that there might be an accident in the middle of the village. For some time the people of this ancient village have been concerned about a narrow footpath on one side of the church. It is difficult enough at the best of times, and, because the A525 can carry heavy traffic, there is a real danger that the mothers and children who frequently use the path—it is the only way to go from one part of the village to the local shops—will inevitably be faced with the hazard of an articulated lorry mounting the pavement. That happens, not occasionally but with increasing frequency.

In bringing the subject before the House tonight I am fulfilling one of the basic purposes of Members of Parliament. This route, which is part of the Department of Transport's primary route network, is covered by three county councils—Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire. Tonight I am concerned with the length of road covered by Cheshire. The road links to the M6 and has been known to carry a considerable volume of heavy traffic for its weight and certainly for its size. One of the traffic counts in November 1985 in Shropshire street—the narrow part of the village—showed 2,050 vehicles in a 12-hour period. We must set aside the fact that it is an old village. The main categories of vehicles were heavy lorries.

My predecessor in the constituency and members of the parish council in Audlem were so concerned that they asked the county council to deal with the problem. I am sorry that for various reasons the villagers did not accept the route which would have provided them with a bypass. As often happens on these occasions, once such an opportunity is missed, the matter goes to the bottom of the pile. When I took over responsibility for the constituency, it became clear to me on my monthly visits to the village to hold my surgery that the narrow footpath posed a real danger to mothers and children who used it. It is about 1.6m wide and even narrower at some points. Indeed, some houses on Stafford street, which are occupied by retired constituents, are so close to the articulated lorries that they are being damaged and their occupants have the constant noise of lorries thundering past only a short distance from their windows.

I asked Cheshire county council to find some way of dealing with this immediate difficulty. Originally, a northern extension had been considered. It would have provided a bypass, would have linked Shropshire street and the A529 Cheshire street and required a certain amount of demolition. That was rejected. We considered a southern outer bypass scheme, which might have been a responsible answer, but it was very expensive—an estimated £1.5 million. Over the years the constant talks between the parish council and the county council made it clear that either Audlem would be pushed to the bottom of the list for so long that it would have to wait up to 30 years or it would have to go for some other more immediate, but perhaps less adequate, answer.

One suggestion was that we should ask for the route to be changed and its designation to be entered in a different fashion. Therefore, after talking to the parish councillors, I approached the Minister and explained the difficulty of dealing with three county councils when, almost automatically, if one county council agreed the other two found the solution unacceptable. I asked the Minister whether he would be prepared to come and look at the road himself or to call together all the county councillors, but preferably to do both. Were the Minister to see this hazard he would understand why it is a matter that goes will beyond straightening out a particular road traffic problem in a small village.

However, the Minister felt that would not be possible. He sent me a letter, in which he said: I am aware of the problems created by heavy traffic…the fact remains that the A525 through Audlem is the responsibility of Cheshire Council Council…and it is for them to initiate measures to relieve the community of traffic nuisance. He went on to say: Cheshire have suggested that the A525 should be removed from the Primary Route Network but I do not think that that action would provide an answer. He said that the A525 would remain a direct route and that everyone would still use it. If people were no longer signposted that way, only those who knew that route existed or who read maps before they commenced their journey—they are a small proportion of the electorate—would automatically go that way.

However, the Minister said: have already written to Cheshire County Council…and have offered them the services of the Department's North West Regional Office…if they wish to explore further the possibility of a bypass. The Minister knows that the money for that has to be forthcoming from somewhere and he also knows that Cheshire has already committed all its money to those schemes which it thinks are far more serious and urgent. That does not solve the problem for people in Audlem, and it certainly does not solve the problem for the mums and the children.

The parish council sent me a copy of the letter that it sent to the Minister which said that it was most concerned that you"— the Secretary of State— are not prepared to remove the length of the A525 from Woore, Shropshire to Burleydam, Cheshire, from the Primary Route Network. As a result of your decision, a serious and potentially dangerous problem still exists in Audlem with heavy vehicles passing through the centre of the village and mounting footpaths. The Parish Council would ask you to reconsider the matter, and, if de-priming cannot take place, would ask that urgent consideration should be given to an outer village by-pass. It, too, would like to see the Minister in the village looking at the difficulties.

The expansion of the roads programme over the past two or three years under this Government has gone, almost without exception, into the motorway system. A great deal of money has been spent on the road pattern. Indeed, the imbalance between the amounts of money spent on motorways and comparable forms of transport—for example, the railways—is most marked.

One reason why democracy, particularly British democracy, has existed for so long is that the problems of small groups of people are considered sufficiently important when raised in the House to be looked at seriously and with care. If that means bringing together representatives of three county councils and seeking an agreement to have this route classification changed, I would hope that the Minister would find time in his busy life to do that very thing.

The Minister knows that Cheshire county does not have at its disposal the money to create an alternative bypass and that we know this to be a real problem. I remind him that as an elected representative I do not want to be responsible for the death of one child if there is anything that I can do to stop the traffic problems in this village which constantly concern all those who have children and who use that footpath.

The Minister is a kind and considerate man and I ask him seriously tonight, if he will not come himself, to make sure that at least one of his representatives pays close attention to the matter. He should not come to the Dispatch Box and say, "This is a matter not for me but for other elected representatives." When the House of Commons ceases to be prepared, at midnight, to discuss important measures which affect the families and children of Audlem, the House will have lost one of its most important, potent and dearly protected rights—the simple right to care about the villagers and their traffic problems.

12.5 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)

I welcome the debate, because it allows me to spell out one of the differences between our present parliamentary system and the system which the absent Members of the Liberal party and the SDP would wish to foist on Britain of multi-Member large constituencies, where no single Member would represent a village, street or estate. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) does her constituents a service by raising their problems here. Our electoral system is not perfect, but it is highly desirable to have one Member to one constituency.

One sensible point made by the hon. Lady was that the villagers of Audlem did not take the relief when it was available. It is critical—I hope that this message goes out to every one of the 650 constituencies—to have through roads for through traffic, so that there can be a partial exclusion of traffic and an emphasis on residence in other areas. There was a time when it appeared to be fashionable in some areas to say that we did not need road building. The plain truth, as the hon. Lady said, is that we do. We do not wish to cover the country with concrete, but in an historic village, town or even part of a city where people are exposed to danger because of through traffic, that through traffic should be put on a safe through road, whether single or dual carriageway. Whatever the standard, people and traffic do not mix. The hon. Lady mentioned the problems with the narrow pavement by the church. Everyone in the House will have recognised the sincerity with which she made her points.

Towards the end of her speech the hon. Lady said that she would not want the responsibility for continuing danger. I hope that no one would. I have said before that, in the days of capital punishment, the Home Secretary had to make fewer decisions over life and death than the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport must make week after week and month after month. We know that the way in which money is spent on road improvements affects people's chances of injury or death. Each year we could fill the Royal Albert Hall with the more than 5,000 people who die on our roads, and we could fill Wembley three times over with those who are injured. It is important to get the hierarchy of roads right and ensure that money is spent to the best advantage for employment prospects, for casualty reduction and for protecting the environment. Protecting the environment does not just mean providing badger runways under new motorways; it means bringing relief to people such as the villagers of Audlem.

As I was born on the A41 in Newport and I used to sell daffodils on the stones of Market Drayton, I know that part of the world fairly well. I hope the hon. Lady will accept that when I do not immediately accept every invitation to visit every town and village in the country, that is purely because of shortage of time. I spend about four days a week out of London, as well as trying to be present in the House to answer important debates such as this one, and if every one of the 650 constituencies wanted me to see one of its road problems each year, I would have to try to fit in two constituencies a day, including Saturdays and Sundays. No Under-Secretary of State for Transport could do that. If there is an opportunity in the future, I shall accept the hon. Lady's invitation, which was repeated by the county secretary in a letter which I received recently.

As for the problems, if the issue is that there should be a bypass, the hon. Lady has said that this is a matter for the county council. Nobody claims that the county council's job is easy, but there is a hierarchy of responsibilities. I dispute the suggestion that all the money that has been allocated for roads has been spent on motorways. Many bypasses have been added to the national programme, and the transport supplementary grant system has enabled a large number of county highway authorities to add bypasses and relief roads to their programmes.

If I am unable to go myself, I shall encourage Department of Transport officials to have discussions with the county about what might be done for the village. I am not promising an instant solution, but national and local government should work together to try to solve an admitted problem.

To take the village off the primary route network is not necessarily the answer, but I do not think that many letters have been received from neighbouring county councils to the south or from the town to the north, which I suspect is also in the hon. Lady's constituency, saying, "Please send the heavy traffic away from the A525 on to other roads." Lorry and car traffic, especially if it is local in its destination or origin, and also bicyclists and pedestrians take a straight line, wherever they can, and the A525 is a straight line.

The hon. Lady spelt out the fact that relief, where it can be achieved, is the cornerstone of our roads policy. I think that that view is shared by the three county councils in England and the county council in Wales which share the responsibility for the road on its 50 km journey from Wrexham to Newcastle-under-Lyme. The road is of more than local importance, because it is part of the primary route network, and it might help the House if I said a word about it.

The non-motorway roads—both trunk roads, which are looked after by the national Government and principal roads, which are looked after by the county highway authorities—offer the best route for longer distance journeys between places of traffic importance where motorways are not available. They are recognised by people on the roads by the green-backed signs. The primary route network was first defined 20 years ago and is made up of 18,000 km of route, divided between the trunk roads and the local authority roads, like the A525. Therefore, the network is jointly owned, but it is defined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the local highway authorities. A major review was completed recently. Any casual glance at the map would confirm that no motorway is available for east-west journeys from Stoke towards Whitchurch and Wrexham. There are places of traffic importance on this access. Therefore, there is case for a primary route link. The A525 is the shortest route for journeys between many centres of population.

Audlem, a village of about 2,000 people, sits astride the A525 in an east-west direction and the A529 in a north-south direction. These two roads cross in the village and run together for a short distance. The A525 is poorly aligned and passes through the very narrow and tortuous main street. Any vehicles create severe problems for pedestrians and also environmental intrusion. There is a 30 mph speed limit in the village.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Which is completely ignored, for no good reason.

Mr. Bottomley

Overall, traffic numbers on this part of the A525 are not high—about 2,000 vehicles a day, but there is a high proportion—about 15 per cent.—of heavy vehicles, which convert to about 300 heavy goods vehicles a day. Our national records show that there were seven injury accidents between 1981 and 1985 at Audlem on the A525. Two involved serious injuries but, thankfully, no fatalities. I know that it is always dangerous to say that because we never know what will happen next week. I see the hon. Lady touching wood on the seat beside her.

Before dealing with the removal of the A525 from the primary route network I should remind the House of what the hon. Lady said about Cheshire county council trying over many years to find a solution to the problem. The county had thought about a relief road to bypass the centre of the village, but there were objections from local people because that would have entailed the demolition of properties and created environmental problems. In other words, there is not a cost-free solution.

The main suggestion this evening is the removal of the A525 from the primary route network. That suggestion was carefully considered during the recent review and was strongly opposed by the neighbouring county councils of Staffordshire and Shropshire and by the Crewe and Nantwich borough council and Nantwich town council.

Why was there opposition to the removal of Audlem from the primary route network, or the removal from it of the A525? Traffic would otherwise be supposed to follow one of two alternative routes. That would be north of the A525, using the A51/52 into Nantwich and then the A530 towards the A525 and Whitchurch, or the A534 towards Wrexham; or, alternatively, south of the A525, using the A53 to Market Drayton and the A41 towards Whitchurch.

Each of these alternatives passes through other towns and villages and the transfer of additional traffic from the A525 would exacerbate problems in those areas. In simple terms, Audlem's gain would be someone else's loss. The practical result would be the disappearance of the green signs, which would be replaced by local white-backed signs. I do not want to overstate the efficacy of signing because drivers will follow signed routes only if it is not evident that there is another shorter or faster route for their journey. Regular travellers, including heavy goods vehicle drivers, who, with their employers, are interested in time saving if not fuel saving, soon establish the optimum route. Many journeys that are now made on the A525 would be considerably lengthened if traffic diverted to the northern or southern options. I am not talking of "considerable" in terms of an additional 10 or 20 miles, but "considerable" in terms of what drivers would do. That suggests that the traffic reduction in Audlem might prove to be marginal.

On present information, we believe that on balance the A525 should stay on the primary route network, but the position will be kept under review. I do not need to give the reasons for this, because the hon. Lady has given them clearly. The reason for the recent general review was a recognition that more than 20 years of motorway building and improvements to all-purpose roads, plus traffic increases and population changes, made it necessary to bring the primary route network up to date. Changes in coming years may require and justify further revision. as for the A525, we shall need to be satisfied that the benefits for Audlem outweigh the disadvantages that have been identified by opponents.

I am not saying that we want to see a situation that would bring no disadvantages to anyone else. We want merely to see the balance of the advantages and disadvantages changed. It may be that the county council feels that it has exhausted all possible options for a relief road or bypass, or other forms of improvement, without finding an acceptable answer, and it is possible that a fresh look might produce dividends. I offer the assistance of the Department, especially the north-west regional office, if the county council feels that this would be useful. It is important that I do not give the impression that the Government are trying to take over the responsibility for the road, but I think that I can offer the hand of open help if the county council would like that?

Mrs. Dunwoody

Is there any money?

Mr. Bottomley

The hon. Lady asks whether there is any money, and I cannot give her a categorical answer. The TSG system provides central Government support, which is currently 50 per cent. of estimated expenditure, to local authorities for spending on roads which serve more than a purely local function. This includes schemes on the primary route network. It includes bypasses, which relieve communities or shopping centres from the effects of heavy through traffic. It is also guided towards other important roads carrying heavy long-distance or through traffic. A bypass of Audlem should stand up well against those criteria. I cannot tell the county council in what order it should put its priorities. The most productive meeting is likely to be the one between the county council and departmental officials. I strongly advocate that approach.

We recognise the problem. There are substantial doubts about whether removal from the primary route network would be of much help. The answer may lie in improvements. The hon. Lady anticipated my final words, which are to re-emphasise that this is a matter for Cheshire. I hope that our debate will help. I assure the hon. Lady that, looking at the country as a whole, I am determined to go on trying to bring the kind of relief that Audlem seeks, without nationalising the whole road network. There are often times when roads under local county highway authority control are improved more rapidly than they would be if they were under my control. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.