§ Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)There is a story of a politician campaigning in an African election who pledges the people at a meeting that he will bring them roads and bridges. A call comes from the back of the room, "We have no rivers", to which the politician replies, "I shall bring you rivers also." Thank heavens that nobody can come before the House in the spirit of that African politician. Road construction in Britain, or, at least, the detail of road construction, is not a party-political matter.
It is of course true that the amount of money overall that is allocated for road construction is, in a sense, a political matter, because it involves a choice of priorities. And here the Government's record on that stands up well. In 1985–86 the capital spend on roads increased by 20 per cent. in real terms over the level in 1978–9. And in the coming year, 1986–87, the capital spend will be no less than 30 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. We should pay tribute to the Government for that fact. The Government have made the right political decisions to allocate resources for road construction on a generous and rising basis.
Nevertheless, the point that I was making about the African politician remains. In this country the procedures for designating priorities for roads and for designing those roads are not political in character. The system is designed to reflect objective factors and to deal as dispassionately as possible with the costs and benefits of different choices.
I say all that to show my hon Friend the Minister that in raising today the future of the A420 in Oxfordshire I am fully conscious of the fact that this is only one among many trunk roads with problems which he has under his responsibility. I want to make that clear from the start. Nevertheless, the A420, as it runs from east to west—or west to east, depending on where one starts—through my constituency from Swindon to Oxford, is a trunk road with problems, as I hope to demonstrate in the course of my remarks. I am glad, on behalf of my constituents, to have this opportunity to draw my hon. Friend's personal attention to these problems.
I invite the House and my hon. Friend to come with me along this road on what the Beatles called a "Magical Mystery Tour". Let us start out from the dreaming spires of Oxford, or at any rate from the dreaming spire of Hartwell's garage at Botley. The first stretch runs from Botley to the Cumnor Hill bypass. That seems to work well, although we notice, as we drive along this stretch of the road, that the traffic is moving fast in both directions Indeed, if the police are not watching, many people exceed the speed limit.
That is what causes the problems which we find when we hit the second stretch of the road, from the end of the Cumnor Hill bypass to the beginning of the dual carriageway at Tubney Wood. Here we will find a problem that comes up again and again along the A420. Having moved extremely fast along the earlier bit of the road, we have to slow down dramatically as we come to the single carriageway. We begin to see a build-up of frustration in the motorists travelling on that road.
The result is that when we come to a short stretch of dual carriageway at Tubney Wood drivers speed up tremendously as they try to break out of the log-jam, and there is a lot of overtaking as people try to get ahead before 1527 the next stretch of single carriageway between Tubney Wood and Kingston Bagpuize where, again, there is more slowing down, more frustration, and more people waiting for the next opportunity to push ahead.
When we reach Kingston Bagpuize we come across our first major problem on the road. There is an urgent need for the bypass at Kingston Bagpuize. It is the only settlement along the A420 that has not yet been bypassed and it faces serious problems. Those problems are well illustrated by the latest figures—the road is being surveyed at present—which show that 16 per cent. of the traffic at Kingston Bagpuize is constituted of heavy goods vehicles above 3 tonnes in weight. That compares with a national average on trunk roads of about 10 per cent. Furthermore, there has been a dramatic growth in all traffic of 15.6 per cent. over the past three years, compared with the national average growth of 9.5 per cent.
I have to say to the Minister about the Kingston Bagpuize bypass that there really must not be any further delay in its construction. I draw the Minister's attention to the petition I sent to him in the summer.
My constituents at Kingston Bagpuize see that the Oxfordshire county council, when it was responsible for the road, completed the Shrivenham and Faringdon bypasses before the road was trunked. They see that since the A420 has been trunked there has been a considerable delay building up in the work on the Kingston Bagpuize bypass. Not unnaturally, they are putting these points together and are reaching conclusions that should make my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department feel uncomfortable. That is why I would like to bring, if I may, a delegation from the community at Kingston Bagpuize to meet my hon. Friend the Minister to discuss the future programme and how we can speed it up. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend will confirm his willingness to do that at a mutually convenient time.
It is not for me to comment on the details of the design of the Kingston Bagpuize bypass. Under our system that is a matter for expert judgment. However, I am concerned about three points. First, there is the line of the road. The petition to which I referred suggests that a substantial majority of the local people want to press ahead with the preferred northern route, although I have to say to my hon. Friend that it was a psychological error in October 1984 not to consult on both routes, the one running south as well as that running north.
A second point concerns access from Longworth. The Minister will have to strike a difficult balance between the interests of Longworth residents gaining access to the A420 and to Southmoor and the interests of residents at the Draycott Wood estate in not having their environment further damaged by the construction of a bridge. I do not envy the task that my hon. Friend and the inspector face in this matter. My hope is that he will seek to minimise the damage to the environment for people on the Draycott Wood estate.
Third, there is the question of the A415 crossing on the A420. It would be deeply unsatisfactory if this were not to be resolved at the same time as the construction of the bypass. We must not allow an essentially bureaucratic factor, which is that the Department of Transport is responsible for the A420 while the Oxfordshire county council is responsible for the A415, to produce what will be a bungle if this issue is not properly addressed. It is my 1528 belief that the Department of Transport must recognise that what it is going to do on the A420 is bound to have an effect on the A415 at that point, and that these limitations must be resolved together.
Let us return to our drive along the A420. We come next to the single carriageway leading from Kingston Baguize to the Faringdon bypass. Here we find a continuation of the problem I described earlier of traffic build-up, blockage and frustration. And this leads us to the next major problem we encounter on our drive—the Faringdon bypass. There is no doubt that that is an accident black spot. There have been nine serious accidents in the past three years, a number of them fatal. Town councillor Donald Barber has conducted a useful house-to-house survey involving quite a large sample. This has shown that 27 per cent. of those polled in Faringdon believe the junction to be unsafe and a further 48 per cent. believe it to be positively dangerous.
The basic cause of the situation is not seriously in doubt. We are getting frustrated drivers building up on the single carriageway stretches. They see something that looks a bit like a dual carriageway at the bypass, and they accelerate to overtake after the bottlenecks—and then they smash into cars that have been pulled into the ghost islands in the centre waiting to turn towards Faringdon.
I believe that the proposal to deal with this problem by improving delineation is not good enough. The Department of Transport will have to accept that there must be a roundabout. I know that that will slow down traffic on the trunk road, but there are roundabouts, for example, on the A34—a trunk road—between Woodstock and Oxford. They have been found to be necessary there, as I believe one to be necessary at Faringdon.
Let us continue along the road: we are near the end of our journey. The next stretch lies between Faringdon and the Shrivenham bypass. Once again, traffic is building up, leading to problems at the Shrivenham bypass that are similar to those at Faringdon, although they are less serious. On this matter, I am grateful to my distinguished constituent, Professor Charlesby, for the work that he has done. The bypass at Shrivenham should have been built as a dual carriageway, and I believe that it will have to be dualled eventually. So we come to the final stretch of the A420 in Oxfordshire, between Shrivenham and the county boundary, where, once again, we have the problem of a single carriageway on an increasingly intensively used road.
Before I draw some general conclusions from this journey through my constituency, I should like to say a word about the problem of service facilities. There is no doubt that we need at least one more service facility on the A420 in Oxfordshire. There are current applications at Faringdom, at Buckland and at Kingston Bagpuize. The latter two are currently the subject of an inquiry, and we are waiting to hear from the inspector.
The only comment that I wish to make, which is a point of general application, is that I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the serious inconveniences—I put it mildly when I use that word—that are caused by the apparent lack of a Department of Transport policy on the provision of services on trunk roads. It cannot be a matter just of highway safety. Other interests have to be taken into account, among them, for example, the optimal spacing between facilities. The Minister's Department must grasp this issue so as to 1529 relieve pressures that my constituents at Buckland have been facing because of an application which is probably unsuitable.
Having taken the House and my hon. Friend on this journey through "leafy Oxfordshire", I should like to leave three main points in his mind. I should like him to recognise the growing pressure on this road. It is one of the principal axes of communication in what is now called the M4 corridor, an area of fast and growing economic development which is important to the national interest. This development is reflected in the traffic figures that I cited: I draw particular attention to the percentage and growth of HGV traffic. We must welcome such an event, but I shudder to think of the consequences for the A420 if and when Honda expands its operations at Swindon, linked to its partner, Austin Rover, at Cowley. The amount of heavy traffic passing between these two facilities is already considerable, and there is every prospect of it growing substantially in future.
The Minister must, I think, accept that the whole road will have to be dualled. I understand that the forecasts of traffic growth over the next 15 years show increases that are well in excess of the criteria currently used for justifying the construction of dual carriageways.
Second, I should like my hon. Friend to recognise that the whole of the A420 requires attention, not just the bits between the bypasses or, for that matter, the bypasses themselves. I very much welcome the news of the decision to review the A420 in Oxfordshire, but I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that no solutions will be precluded by the terms of reference of the review that will be conducted. I am thinking particularly of the necessary improvements of the Faringdon and Shrivenham bypasses.
Finally, I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that, notwithstanding the overall review of the problems of the A420 in my constituency, it will not be allowed to inflict any additional delay on work on the bypass which is necessary to relieve the problems of the unfortunate inhabitants of Kingston Bagpuize. The situation there is had and continues to become worse. Only on Wednesday there was a serious accident outside "Fallowfields", in the same place where someone was killed last year. Reports of such events—and of dangerous near misses which are not reflected in the statistics, but which are real nonetheless—come to me almost every week. The planning routines of my hon. Friend's Department are no doubt very important, but, for God's sake, let those necessary routines not be leisurely—let them be urgent.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) has done a service to his constituents by raising issues about the A420 and associated roads. My hon. Friend's contribution reminds me of the importance of having single-Member constituencies. He has taken us on a tour of the A420 and he has also disclosed his age because I suspect that many people would not immediately understand the reference to the Beatles' "Magical Mystery Tour." My hon. Friend has shown such expertise that that is either a full qualification or a total disqualification for taking my job if ever there is an unexpected vacancy. I sometimes wonder, if there 1530 were multi-Member constituencies, whether such issues would be raised in the way in which my hon. Friend has raised them.
At the beginning of his speech my hon. Friend referred to the road building programme. I am sure that he will be pleased to note that last year we spent within 0.5 per cent. of the capital funds allocated. If he and I had had a debate at any time between 1974 and 1979 I would have had to have said that the national roads programme was being cut. We have managed to increase it, as my hon. Friend has said. More than that, we have achieved better value for money, more miles per million pounds, and that has meant more relief, more bypasses and more accident investigation and prevention work, otherwise known as low-cost engineering. That is the kind of approach to dangerous road situations to which my hon. Friend has referred. Sometimes these can be solved by ghost islands, by roundabouts or by grade separation. All the money is used to advantage.
The Department recognises the importance of the A420 as the main route linking Swindon and the M4 with the A34 at Oxford and from there with main routes to the east midlands, M1 and the north.
My hon. Friend has helpfully outlined the background. The A420 was until recently the responsibility of the appropriate local authorities—Wiltshire at the western end and formerly Berkshire and more recently Oxfordshire to the east. In the 1970s the Oxfordshire county council built a bypass and new interchange at Cumnor, with financial help from the taxpayer through the Government.
In 1978 the then Secretary of State announced his intention to improve conditions on the A420 with bypasses for Shrivenham, Faringdon, and Kingston Bagpuize. The Faringdon and Shrivenham bypasses which were opened in 1979 and 1984, respectively, were financed by 100 per cent. grant from the Department in recognitiion of the importance of the route and the benefit of removing traffic from rural towns. We are now preparing a bypass for Kingston Bagpuize and I will return to this in a moment.
The Government subsequently announced that the A420 would be taken into the national trunk road network following the completion of the Shrivenham bypass. The necessary orders to achieve this positive step were made in December 1985.
On a more general point, often, when a road is trunked, that means a change in possible timing because that takes the control of preparation work out of the hands of the county highway authority acting as principal and puts it into the hands of the Government, although often the local highway authority acts as the agent for the Department.
My hon. Friend is understandably concerned about the proposed bypass of Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor which is the only major settlement on the A420 without a bypass. In the autumn of 1984 we consulted the public on a proposed route to the north of the village. Often when we consult on one route people say that we should have consulted on others. On other occasions people claim that it would be faster if we consulted only on one route so that a bypass might be provided without unnecessary delay. I am willing to accept that on occasions we may take the wrong course. I am not sure that we did that on this occasion. However, I understand my hon. Friend's point about consultation with local people on alternatives rather than having to wait for the inquiry process to have the opportunity to put forward alternatives.
1531 After careful consideration of the views expressed by the public, local authorities and interested organisations and after weighing the various factors involved, we announced in May this year that a northern route would be adopted. This route is generally within or very close to the corridor protected for the bypass since 1966, first by Berkshire county council and then by Oxfordshire county council.
We are continuing the necessary preparations for the publication of draft orders under the Highways Act by about the middle of next year. The actual start will, of course, depend on the outcome of the remaining statutory procedures. We also have to allow time for completion of the detailed design, preparation of contract documents and tendering procedures. I cannot give an assurance on timing, but my hon. Friend may like to know that, on the basis of experience elsewhere, I would hope that construction would start within the next three years or so. I know that the scheme is important to my hon. Friend's constituency and more widely, and if we can improve upon that timetable we shall do so.
I know that some of my hon. Friend's constituents would prefer a route to the south of the village. We did not offer this for public consultation as it seemed not to give good value for money, but when the orders are published next year the public will be able to object. If there is a public inquiry, which seems likely, members of the public will be able to put their views to the independent inspector. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about that process. As he said, it is not party political. The procedures for any individual road scheme mean that objections come before an impartial inspector and I think that people have confidence in that system. Our procedures provide for such an inquiry and we regard it as important for people with genuine concerns to be able to state those objections and, if they wish, to propose alternative routes.
Part of Kingston Bagpuize is a conservation area and provision of a trunk road bypass will accord well with our policy of getting traffic out of towns and villages and facilitating the flow of traffic to and from industrial centres to aid economic recovery.
I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents would also like an A415 bypass. As he said, that road is the responsibility of Oxfordshire county council and he knows that I cannot provide trunk roads for it. Nevertheless, it would be surprising if there were not co-ordination, as those concerned know that road travellers are not particularly interested in whether they are travelling on a national road or a county road.
My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the increase in use of the A420. We recognise that it carries a relatively high proportion of heavy goods vehicles and that this may increase slightly as a result of the facilities being constructed by Honda at Swindon. In recognition of the increased traffic, I hope that we shall be able to justify constructing the Kingston Bagpuize bypass as a dual carriageway. I note my hon. Friend's comments about the standard of previous bypasses. It is clear that roads have to be constructed according to the standards applying at the time. It is also clear that if we can keep road spending to what is justified at present, with a reasonable look forward, it will be possible to bring more bypasses into the programme. We have completed 60 or 70 since 1979 and 1532 many more have been added or taken back off the shelf because funds were available. That in itself requires the exercise of some consistency in standards.
My hon. Friend referred to accidents on the A420 and I was sorry to hear of the fatality near Faringdon on 11 December and of other recent accidents and near misses. Like my hon. Friend, I extend my sympathy to the bereaved and the injured. In fact, the overall accident rate is lower than the national rate for this type of road and the Faringdon bypass has halved the accident rate that would otherwise have been expected. Nevertheless, I will ensure that my hon. Friend's observations about individual junctions are properly considered.
We are very conscious of the importance of the trunk road network in Oxfordshire. The A34 is being progressively improved from Oxford southwards to provide a high-standard route to Southampton and Portsmouth. Northwards, good progress is being made with the planning of two schemes—the A43/A421 improvement from Peartree hill to Wendlebury and the M40 extension, which will provide a vastly improved route between Oxford and the midlands. We are also improving the A43 between Wendlebury and the M1.
My hon. Friend asked whether it might be suitable to meet him and representatives of his constituents. I know that he had a meeting with my predecessor, now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I am sure that it would be possible and, perhaps, helpful to have a meeting. However, I would not wish people to think that by having a meeting they could accelerate the process faster than it can naturally be taken. Nothing would be worse than for us to make an unnecessary mistake in our preparation work. That may be more damaging than trying to take the proposed bypass properly through the procedures.
My hon. Friend asked about service facilities. Plainly, the old tradition of relying on what happens to be at the side of the road may have worked when there were only on-line improvements. Then the hotels, service stations and telephones may have been sufficient, but we have moved on from that. In general our policy is right. The location of such facilities should be determined by market forces so long as they are subject to normal planning procedures and the need to maintain highway safety and the flow of traffic. The acceleration of the road programme in recent years may have left the provision of facilities behind. As we move towards getting facilities on our motorway network, we hope that the private sector and planning authorities will consider what is most appropriate and provide the conveniences that people expect on our trunk roads.
The A420 will provide an important connection to those routes. Indeed, it already does as the exceptional growth of traffic has demonstrated. My hon. Friend quoted figures to show that in recent years traffic has been growing about 50 per cent. faster than in average years.
In case those listening to the debate or those who read it later think that road spending is being concentrated on the south-east, let me say that having an integral road network is advantageous to people all over the country. If people from the south-west, for example, are trying to take goods to the east coast, they will find roads such as the A420 an advantage. Even the completion of the M25 has advantages in terms of employment prospects in Lancashire, the north-east and the north-west because it provides access to the Channel ports. It does not matter 1533 where the improvements take place so long as they help commerce to have reliable deliveries. I am in no sense arguing for traffic to travel faster in terms of miles per hour, but I am arguing for reliable deliveries to make commercial connections which help all areas.
In view of the importance of the A420 as part of our normal ongoing process of reviewing the needs of the trunk road network, we have recently agreed to a wide ranging study to cover the A420 between the county boundary and Botley interchange. It will be undertaken by our agents, the Oxfordshire county council, and will involve the collection of data on accidents, delays, layout standards, traffic volumes and movements. When complete, the study will enable us to decide whether any further improvements are needed on this road, in addition to the bypasses I have already mentioned. We shall also be able to get a good idea of what form those improvements should take.
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I reiterate that safety on the roads depends in part on traffic engineering—road layout, having bypasses, being able partially to exclude traffic, and through roads for through traffic—but in 95 per cent. of accidents a human factor is involved. It may be a misperception or misreading of the road, such as the ghost island problem, to which my hon. Friend referred. But the greatest contributor is drink.
One fatal accident in four involves drink. Each year we could fill the Royal Albert hall with dead bodies from our roads and one seat in four would be occupied by a victim of mixing drinking and driving. The campaign against drink-driving is not just before Christmas. It continues through every month of the year. About 120 people a month die on our roads through the mixture of drinking and driving.
I assure my hon. Friend that in terms of road casualty reduction and trying to increase our economic opportunities, the Department of Transport will continue to do what it can to bring relief, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, but throughout the country, so that without covering the countryside with concrete or tarmacadam we shall provide the transport mobility that people should be able to expect.