§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]
10.12 pm§ Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for coming to the House to answer this debate.
When I first became the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, one of my first endeavours concerned the erection of our new hospital. After having several Adjournment debates, I am happy to say that that hospital is now full of patients. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that he will not have to meet me too often on this subject if he can say something profitable to me tonight.
The problem of the Banwell bypass is of long-standing concern. The village, which sits on the junction of two A roads, was, of course, built in the horse and cart age. It provides a feeder road for a lot of traffic leaving on one side of Weston-super-Mare. It is worth bearing in mind that a seaside town is unique in one respect. Only half the area around the town is available to move in and out of, for obvious geographical reasons. The A371, which runs through Banwell, is a crucial road for people who wish to move in and out of the town. In addition, it is on the route used by much of the lorry traffic that emanates from that great source of road stone in our part of the world, the Mendip quarries. The problem is exacerbated by that.
In his last letter to me on this subject, the county surveyor said:
The County Council shares your concern about traffic conditions in Banwell and Winscombe and has retained proposals to bypass both communities within the First Alteration to the Structure Plan. Unfortunately it has only been possible within the resources available to programme the Banwell bypass for construction within the period to 1996: the Winscombe bypass will continue to be safeguarded.The existing plan is that in 1994 or 1995 the county will hope to start to spend £3 million, at 1985 prices, on the Banwell part of this road. I am afraid that that delay is too long. Ten years at least for this hell to continue is unacceptable to my constituents. When I learn that the Winscombe bypass is unlikely to be started until after 1996, at a cost of, say £3.8 million, making perhaps £7 million in all as the cost of the total bypass. I despair at the parsimony of the Government, who should be able to find that sum for such an important road extension.My constituents—Mrs. Anthea James and a number of her friends—have formed an organisation which they call the Traffic Action Group, Banwell. I sent my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a copy of the census which they carried out in a professional manner for 12 hours a day for five working days last July. The survey revealed the astonishing figure of nearly 10,000 vehicles of one sort of another a day—not including the night—passing through Banwell. If there is a six-minute delay —the arithmetic is easier using that number—it means that 1,000 man-hours a day are wasted sitting in traffic jams around Banwell. Add the cost of fuel and all the other frustrations emanating from traffic damage and we find that this one bottleneck costs an astonishing amount, running into millions of pounds a year.
The Department of Transport has methods to calculate the economic benefits of bypasses, but it does not need an economics graduate to work out that an investment of £7 million in this bypass would rapidly be returned to the 793 local economy in better transport facilities and access. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not tell me in too much detail that he does not have any great responsibility for this matter and that it is just the county council's responsibility. The time is coming when central Government will have to grasp some of these transport problems.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will know that the vast majority of the road building budget in the county of Avon is taken up on building the Avon ring road. This is adjudged by his Department to be a local feeder road, not a trunk road. I very much hope that he will have yet another look at the prospect of making the Avon county road a Department of Transport trunk road. If he will, that will unblock many schemes in the county, not just in Banwell. His Department has just had an extra £65 million from the Chancellor's largesse. I should have thought that a county as important as Avon—a centre point in our national road system — would certainly justify a little extra expenditure to help us all. I am not in any way suggesting that the Avon county ring road is not a priority; it certainly is. The traffic on the outskirts of Bristol is a disgrace.
I turn to the problems of Weston-super-Mare. My difficulty is that I would hate to give the impression that the town is always one big traffic jam, because it is not. I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because not long ago you had the good wisdom to marry a most attractive widow who lived in the village of Banwell. Although I would never invoke your assistance in this matter, I appreciate your presence, as you will be only too familiar with the two problems that I am enumerating.
On a Saturday morning in July and August the traffic in Weston-super-Mare is such that any sensible planner would have to consider doing something about it. Indeed, Avon county council, in conjunction with the district, has over the years reserved the line of a road that would run from junction 21 of the motorway, through the heart of the town and out to the industrial estate where the heavy traffic goes. That would have a sensational effect on the town's traffic problems. It is now being actively talked about by all those involved in local government in my part of the world.
During my time as Member of Parliament for Weston-super-Mare more than 10,000 houses have been built in the district known as Worle, and we are still building lots more, with even more planned at Locking castle. Weston-super-Mare does not enjoy a very healthy employment figure. It is about 2 per cent. above the national average, and is the worst in the county of Avon. My industrialist friends and constituents tell me that if the road was built, it would be a substantial inducement to industry to move to the centre of Weston-super-Mare and to employ people in an area where there is considerable pressure. In national terms, the costs are not very great, but they are completely beyond the district council's capacity. It is a county matter, but it has other priorities.
We are talking about £12 million, or perhaps a little less, at today's prices in order to solve the problem in one fell swoop. But there is also section 52 blackmail, by which planning permission is given for houses in return for substantial payments by developers. However, that has come up against a block. The amounts required from the 794 developers are so great that they are not prepared to sell the land. I was horrified to hear of threats of compulsory purchase by Conservative authorities, and to me that is quite unacceptable. We must be careful not to overdo these things. But even if such sums were paid, they would be inadequate to build the town centre-M5 link.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister listens to such appeals from all over the country, but there is something that he could consider that might help all of us. When the transport supplementary grant is paid, I believe that no money goes to the county authority for design work in advance of construction or for land bought in advance of it. My county surveyor makes a most reasonable plea to me. He says, "If we plan ahead, deploy staff and buy land in advance, as prudent planners should do, we are discouraged because the Department does not give us a grant." That is folly of the highest order. In considering the ever-increasing problems of traffic, I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind whether that policy is wise and whether the change that I suggest would not be of considerable assistance.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for attending the debate. However, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) whose mother lives in my constituency and knows it well, would like to intervene for a moment.
§ Mr. Simon Coombs (Swindon)I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has said, I have an interest as a regular visitor to his constituency, where my mother lives. She is a keen supporter of my hon. Friend. From my experience of making many visits to Weston-super-Mare, I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. The number of visitors pouring into Weston-super-Mare is enormous now that the quality of the communications network means that the M5 passes its door, and especially in the summer. The town's population has grown rapidly with the development at Worle and the prospect of another development at Locking castle. The village of Banwell, if it had been in any other part of the country, would have been pedestrianised years ago. It is an obvious candidate for a pedestrian scheme as heavy vehicles attempt to fight their way through narrow winding streets.
I support entirely all that my hon. Friend has said. The bypass programme is one of the important features of the Government's transport policy. It has brought relief to many towns and villages. I cannot believe that we should be talking about a gap of 10 years between now and when the people of Banwell and the Weston-super-Mare area generally can expect to be relieved of the heavy volume of traffic that now prevails. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give this matter the most careful thought and speedy action.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). During his time in this place, from 1969 onwards, he has fought assiduously for his constituents. I congratulate him on his success over the hospital in his constituency. As he rightly said, his efforts in this instance should be directed as much to the county council as to me, and I suspect that 795 unless his efforts on this occasion pay off even faster than those which he directed to the hospital, he will have to stay in the House for quite some time.
My hon. Friend has offered an ingenious possible solution, to which I shall turn shortly. Before doing so, I wish to recognise the contribution that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). I am delighted to learn that he has some links with the village of Banwell. I wish to recognise also the enduring interest in transport matters of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who is seen in the Chamber on more occasions than he is able to speak in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has been persistent. I am glad that not every hon. Member is as persistent as he is, but in fighting for something that otherwise would be delayed it is the proper role of an hon. Member to go on and on until success is achieved. It is true that our national programme of 160 bypasses would not have been possible if there had not been a Conservative Government. The money available for new national road construction between 1974 and 1979 was exactly halved in real terms. We could not provide for the economic prosperity of Weston-super-Mare or of Swindon, with its industrial changes, or of any of the regions of Britain, unless we had the funds to enable us to do so. When there are calls for infrastructure spending, there is a need to look to a Conservative Government, and especially this one, who have provided the resources, rather than turn to the rhetoric that we so often hear from the Labour party.
Although we have achieved much with the national programme of trunk roads and motorways, and have been able to give substantial help to local highway authorities and councils, in the main, through the transport supplementary grant, there is a need to keep a sense of proportion over what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare gently referred to as the largesse of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have never thought that providing taxpayers' money was quite largesse, but there has been a welcome increase in the roads programme. If £65 million is divided between the 650 constituencies of the United Kingdom, the result is roughly £100,000 each, if my mathematics are still working at this time of night. That is not the straightforward answer, however.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare spoke of the Department or the Government trunking the Avon ring road. I am sure that that is an issue on which it would he right for me to think. I cannot offer him a guaranteed acceptance of his idea. It is clearly one of the reasons why the county is not able to put the Banwell bypass in the order of priorities that my hon. Friend and his constituents would want.
It is clear that my hon. Friend's constituents not only want, but need, an improvement in the local road network, especially the much-needed bypass at Banwell and I congratulate his action group on its traffic census work. I believe that much more can be done in both road safety and environmental improvement if people get interested in the details of possible beneficial road schemes. It is not just the county or the Department that should provide the expertise. To make inroads into the reduction of unnecessary accidents we need a large number of road casualty reduction experts, preferably about 56 million of them.
796 There is no argument about the desirability of a bypass at Banwell. As my hon. Friend said, the problem lies in the priority to be given to the various improvements recognised as being required. My hon. Friend will not need reminding that, with the exception of the M5 motorway, which is the Department's responsibility, all the roads in his constituency are the responsibility of Avon county council. I note his suggestion that we should trunk a further section of road, but at present, and perhaps for the foreseeable future, it is for the county council alone to determine the priority to be accorded to any improvements considered necessary for its roads.
The approved structure plan contains proposals for a new link between the M5 at junction 21 and the A371 and for a bypass at Banwell. As my hon. Friend said, it is a disappointment for his constituents to know that the motorway link road is shown for construction in the period beyond 1996, and the bypass, to put it gently, in the period up to 1996. The nub of the problem is that the county council has accorded top priority to the construction of the Avon ring road, a new road around the eastern side of Bristol, aimed at improving communications in the depressed southern and eastern parts of the city. This is a very expensive scheme which will cost around £40 million and take up the major proportion of the resources which the council is prepared to allocate to highway improvement for some years to come.
Despite this, the county council has made some progress towards implementing its highway strategy for Weston-super-Mare. Much of the link between the St. George's interchange at junction 21 and the town centre has either been completed or is programmed for construction in conjunction with various development proposals. My hon. Friend also made a number of points about section 52, which could perhaps be considered by officials at the Department or at the Department of the Environment. If there is more to be said, we may w rite to my hon. Friend.
As I have said, there is recognition of the need for a bypass at Banwell. Conditions in the village are well known both to the county council and to the Department. As my hon. Friend said, a route for the bypass is being protected from development, but the county council has expressed the view that many other schemes elsewhere in the county may merit higher priority than the bypass at Banwell following completion of the ring road.
The Government are often accused of interfering with local authorities and of wishing to interfere more. I think that this is one of the occasions when, in general, it might be right for Government not to interfere, although I can understand any hon. Member asking why we have not come in with bigger boots and perhaps some financial inducement for the county council to change its order of priorities. A factual description of the situation, however, is that it is up to people in the county to fight for the right ordering of priorities. I hope that this debate will have a valuable role to play in that.
When the county council has firm plans for Banwell, the Government may be able to help with transport supplementary grant. As my hon. Friend knows, we use this to assist local authorities to improve their more important roads. Hon. Members generally may wish to know that we have recently produced a guide in plain English explaining the transport supplementary grant system. There are copies in the Library and the guide has been sent to all local highway authorities in sufficient 797 numbers for distribution to councillors. I hope that hon. Members of the Labour party and alliance parties, if they are interested, will read Hansard, because at this time of the evening they do not appear to be especially interested in the operation of the transport supplementary grant system.
The grant allows us to respond to bids by local authorities for improvements to their roads which are vital to the national as well as the local economy. The grant system concentrates on programmes helping to cope with heavier, longer distance traffic. The aim is not simply to improve the flow of goods and services or to boost the employment opportunities in the tourist areas, but to help to reduce accidents and save lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is concerned about these three aims and that the right mixture is achieved. An important aim of the grant is to help local authorities to bring relief to communities suffering the effects of such traffic, for example, with the type of bypass which my hon. Friend is after.
We are already helping the county with the first stages of the Avon ring road. The bypass for Banwell could be another candidate for consideration when the time comes. I must emphasise that the judgment of how and when the bypass proceeds is a matter for Avon.
798 At the moment my hon. Friend is frustrated, if I may put it that plainly, that his efforts to secure some improvements in the local road network in his constituency have borne little fruit. My hon. Friend rightly says that that difficulty could be solved by the Government, although that is not especially likely at the moment. It could certainly be solved by a re-ordering of priorities, but I would not want to upset my hon. Friend's colleagues in the rest of the country by saying to which schemes the county should give a higher or lower priority.
Parliament has given the county council full responsibility for the local road network, and it would not be appropriate for central Government to interfere in its assessment of the relative priorities of the many schemes contained in its structure plan.
Without the work of my hon. Friend and our colleagues, many bypasses—whether future ones such as Banwell or completed ones — would not have had a chance to be built now or ever. It is only because of the restructuring that we have done in the various spheres of transport that we have managed to get greater efficiency, greater capital spending and provide a greater prospect for relief, slightly earlier, for the sort of communities which my hon. Friend so well represents in this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.