§ Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House, and perhaps I should explain that my elevation to the Opposition Dispatch Box was self-appointed. It is not the first time that that has happened. I took a leaf out of the book of Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), who did the same thing in 1971—and look how he got on.
Perhaps I may first comment that the debate we have just had on the Scotch whisky industry was important for the whole of Scotland. I value greatly the work of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in respect of that industry, because I have a big constituency interest in it—and I enjoy a dram.
This debate concerns the Ayr road route to the A77 and M77 link, and the decline that will occur in Ayrshire's economy if that project is not put back on schedule and started at the proper time in 1991. I shall summarise the economic issues associated with the A77 extension, concentrating on four main areas. They are the regional perspective, the Ayrshire perspective, the reasons for the 30-month delay in commencing that project and the risk of further slippage if the road building programme is in any way delayed.
The regional perspective and the economic arguments for immediate commencement of the Ayr route are multifactorial, but it is possible to isolate the key and undisputed reason for elevating the Ayr road route to the top of both the Strathclyde regional council and Scottish Development Council road building programmes. There is no doubt that the scheme offers the highest rate of return of all the strategic road schemes in the trunk road programme.
In the cost-benefit analysis undertaken by the Scottish Development Department, the Ayr route recorded a present net value of benefits totalling £236 million on low traffic growth predictions and of £462 million on high traffic growth predictions. A breakdown of the total benefit indicates an evaluation of time savings ranging between £278 million and £500 million, and accident cost savings of between 10.5 million and £14.6 million—to say nothing of the anxiety and distress that can be alleviated by reducing accidents.
The regional economic case was summarised succinctly in the region's application for European regional development funding, which cites the following criteria for progressing the route:
The Ayr road route would be a major improvement to the strategic road network within the Strathclyde region. It would provide a bypass through heavily congested routes to the south side of Glasgow, and has a vital role in improving links between Glasgow and Ayrshire. It would provide a new fast route between Glasgow and the Ayrshire towns of Ayr, Prestwick, Irving—via the A71, Kilmarnock, and the external communications links of Prestwick airport and Stranraer. It would reduce excess costs to markets served by Prestwick airport and would offer major benefits to Ayrshire in linking it firmly to the national Scottish road network. Improved access to and egress from Ayrshire would open up the potential for inward investment and would encourage small to medium sized enterprise development by opening up new areas, and should have a positive impact on tourism and leisure development.Thus, the region has proposed a sound economic case to support the Ayr road route in terms of the cost-benefit 575 analysis; improvement of the regional strategic road network; strengthening of transport links of the metropolitan heart; improvement of external communication links; and the widening of economic development opportunities for Ayrshire. Those are all important issues at a time when we hear that the recession, which is now biting in England, is likely to start in Scotland.From a local, Ayrshire, perspective, the economic arguments can be developed even further by examining the benefits that the extension and upgrading of the Ayr road route will have on the existing industrial and commercial base. The savings in anticipated journey times for industry occasioned by the upgrading and the extension of the A77 have been estimated at between 35 and 47 per cent. in off-peak conditions and between 40 and 53 per cent. during peak conditions.
Clearly, the impact that that will have transportation and distribution costs, lead times, improved freight movement times, local supply sourcing, delivery times and inventories will be considerable. From a human resource perspective, the shorter commuting times will widen the scope for Ayrshire firms to draw from the professional and skilled labour pool offered by the city of Glasgow.
The rapid upgrading and extension of the Ayr route is critical to remove the current relative remoteness of Ayrshire from the national motorway network. It will also improve the competitiveness of firms that are already established there.
In recent years, much has been made of the opportunities that are to be derived from the removal of trade barriers in Europe. We are constantly reminded by the Government and asked whether we are ready for the opportunities of 1992, when those barriers are removed. Unless Ayrshire benefits from an increase in infrastructural investment, we shall be on the periphery—or even beyond—of European markets. Already there is a perceived danger that the peripheralisation associated with the future of the rail network, and an anticipation that the east coast mainline will become the preferred rail route south to London, and to continental Europe for freight services, will be intensified if strategic planning and implementation of an improved road infrastructure is not adhered to, on time, in Ayrshire. We have a right to demand that that scenario is avoided at all costs.
I know that the Minister is familiar with the arguments presented thus far, and I should like to consider the reasons why we now face a further delay of 30 months in the programming of a road, which was originally proposed in 1965, and was probably started by the Romans, if they got to that area.
Both the regional council and the Scottish Office accept and indeed promote the economic justification for the scheme and both have professed a commitment to it. Why, then, is there a 30-month delay? Two weeks ago the new Secretary of State for Scotland announced a £9 million cut in spending on Scotland's roads and transport programme for 1991–92. Clearly, that will substantiate the region's claim that the delay has been occasioned entirely by inadequate total capital allocations.
However, it is on the issue of allocation of resources between competing schemes that the region's commitment to the progression of the Ayr road must be questioned closely. Indeed, in transportation policy and programming 576 procedures, the region set a precedent during the 1990–95 cycle by proposing a capital programme comprising its base programme, and a new departure—to add a supplementary programme of expenditure which consisted of additional expenditure identified by the director of roads, over and above that contained in the 1990–95 financial plan.
The director of roads' view is that this expenditure has a higher priority than some schemes contained in the base programme—and evidently the Ayr road route. The rationale for affording the supplementary programme greater priority than named schemes within the base programme has to be questioned closely. In case the Minister is unfamiliar with the supplementary expenditure programme, it is categorised as follows:
M8 Pavement Reconstruction Renfrew/BailliestonM8 Upgrading of Capacity
- (a) Drumbeck Connection Improvement
- (b) Charing Cross-East of Townhead
Bridge Assessment/Strengthening Replacement, Bridge Refurbishment, Car Park Refurbishment, Town Centre Programme, Public Transport Development Study.That is the priority given by Strathclyde region to its programme. We shall have to go there and question its representatives very closely. To be fair, I do not think that it gave adequate or, indeed, any consideration to the problems that would face Ayrshire once the priorities were changed.The prioritisation of expenditure, as well as the capital allocation aspect, has led to the delay in the extension of the upgrading of the A77. A report by the region's chief executive, entitled "Transport Strategy and Capital Programme Review", dated August 1989, has warned:
Although the TPP Sub-Committee has yet to consider these supplementary bids in detail, it is clear at this stage that if the Council's capital allocations are not increased substantially, then it will be necessary to delay and/or delete a number of named schemes included in the … Programme".The consequential delay for Ayrshire goes further than the A77. In addition to that delay, the A71 improvement at East Holmes has been delayed by 24 months; the Dalry bypass on the A737 has been delayed by 23 months; Doon Bridge, Dalmellington B741 has been delayed by 12 months; the Irvine south approach road bridge has been delayed by 24 months; the Newmilns relief road A71 has been delayed by 24 months; and the Dairy realignment has been delayed by eight months.Let us compare the cost of the supplementary programme—£73 million—with the total cost of the Ayr road route, which is some £55 million. The region's claim that the delay is a direct consequence of inadequate capital allocations from central Government becomes somewhat less convincing in the light of those figures. Nevertheless, it has a case. The Secretary of State for Scotland has announced a £9 million cut in the road programme for 1991–92; two days before, the former Secretary of State —now Secretary of State for Transport—was able to announce £1 billion additional expenditure on the M25, which is more than we have spent on our roads in Scotland for a decade.
Let us address the question why the director of roads in Strathclyde region has prioritised the supplementary expenditure programme—a prioritisation that was subsequently ratified by the transportation TPP sub-committee, full committee and full council by acceptance of proposed minimum and priority programmes. According to the evaluation, capacity enhancement, repairs to the M8 through Glasgow and, indeed, work on 577 the bridge refurbishment and assessment have a greater call on available resources than the Ayr road route and other schemes that are now subject to delay. Obviously, we all consider the work to be done on the bridge essential. We should be finding a way of obtaining additional money, either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from Europe.
Although we in Ayrshire accept that there will always be interests competing for capital allocations, we cannot afford to accept that, merely for that reason, the Ayr road route—the largest single scheme in the capital programme, which was as yet uncommitted—should be targeted for a further 30-month delay. The introduction of a supplementary programme, described in the document as
containing those elements of expenditure felt to be necessary but which cannot all be accommodated within present indications of available resources",and the elevation of that programme to the detriment of the Ayr road route, merit further explanation from the region. It will be pressed for that information.On 9 December, Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council organised a meeting of all Ayrshire district authorities plus the district of Eastwood. Eastwood has a very strong claim for the upgrading of the road, because of the environmental difficulties that it creates with heavy traffic. For Ayrshire authorities to agree on anything is unique, but for the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), other Members of Parliament, councillors and representatives of trade and industry to be of one mind underlines the importance of Ayrshire's unanimity. We agreed that the civic heads of all the authorities should meet Charlie Grey and Malcolm Waugh to press our case for reconsideration of the matter by Strathclyde regional council.
The British Road Federation kindly wrote to me and said that it was delighted to note that this debate was to be held. Richard Diment, the deputy director, commissioned a report from Transport Action Scotland. I have here the brief prepared by Maureen Orde. Another excellent brief was prepared for me by Miss Jacqueline Cullen, the economic development officer of Kilmarnock. I congratulate her on its contents.
Transport Action Scotland represents all types of road users, including freight-carrying organisations. It has been worried for a long time about the shortcomings of the road system serving Ayrshire. The A77 and the A78 are the most important trunk routes. They link the area to Glasgow and the north. The A76/A75 forms the main trunk route south from Ayrshire to the A74/M74. It is particularly concerned about the delay in implementing the A77 road route, despite the Secretary of State's approval for the scheme, following the public inquiry in 1988.
The existing A77 on the south side of Glasgow is completely inadequate for the huge amount of traffic that it is forced to carry. The problems are exacerbated when drivers reach those sections of the road that are nearest the city centre. Traffic volumes range from 15,500 vehicles a day south of Newton Mearns to as many as 27,500 vehicles a day on the section south of Nether Auldhouse road, which gives access to the M77 at Dumbreck junction. That colossal volume of traffic has to go through the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastwood before it reaches the motorway. The effect on the environment is completely unacceptable.
578 I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Eastwood is nodding. I am grateful for his support, although I realise that his ministerial responsibilities prevent him from speaking today. I have been grateful for his support in the past. I shall hope that I continue to have his support—if not from the Dispatch Box, perhaps spiritually.
The road network in Ayrshire is of the utmost importance. Strathclyde regional council advised us to meet the Minister and ask him for more money. I am sure that the Minister realises that early in the new year we shall apply to him for more money. I hope that he will provide us with the opportunity to press the case further if, by now, he has not fully understood the importance of the Ayrshire road route to the economy of the west of Scotland.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench for this important debate and on the able and persuasive way in which he has presented the case on behalf of Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
I fully agree with the hon. Member that the improvement of road links between Glasgow and south-west Scotland should have high priority. At present, traffic between Glasgow and Kilmarnock encounters a bottleneck between the M8 and the start of the four-lane A77 at Newton Mearns. I am well aware, from the representations that have been made to me by the hon. Member and by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and from visiting both Kilmarnock and Eastwood, of the delays that can occur. I fully appreciate the costs of these delays.
It may be helpful if I consider first the strategic significance of the Ayr road route scheme—that is, the link proposed between the end of the M77 spur at Dumbreck, off the M8 in Glasgow—the north end of the proposed road—and the A77 at Malletsheugh south of Newton Mearns.
The major emphasis of the Scottish Office's trunk road programme is to improve the key inter-urban roads in Scotland. Our priorities are to complete the central Scotland motorway network and to press ahead with the upgrading of the A74 to motorway. Funding for trunk roads has been increased substantially to meet those objectives. Two years ago, we spent £90 million on new trunk road construction. This year, we have allocated £130 million. The overall total is £200 million, but, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, a considerable portion must be spent on road safety, on strengthening bridges and on similar activities. The results of that increase in expenditure are clear. Two years ago, we had no motorway schemes in progress. Next year, we shall have six major schemes under construction, all in the central belt of Scotland.
A key to our progress has been our partnership with Strathclyde regional council. It is vital that the trunk and key principal road network in and around Glasgow is upgraded coherently. The jointly funded M80 Stepps bypass is now under construction. Tenders have been invited for a design-and-construct contract for the jointly funded M8 St. James interchange. We have jointly promoted the Ayr road route through a public local inquiry.
579 I am pleased to repeat to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that the emphasis that we place on the completion of the central Scotland motorway network includes high priority for the construction of the Ayr road route. This will provide an important strategic link in the network. Indeed, when complete, there will be continuous motorway, dual-carriageway and single four-lane carriageway link to Ayr from Edinburgh and Glasgow.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood will be interested in the two longer-term improvements that are planned for the trunk road south of Malletsheugh. These will upgrade the remaining four-lane single-carriageway section of the road to dual carriageway. The necessary design work and statutory procedures for the schemes are being progressed by Strathclyde regional council, which is acting as our agents for the project. Our programme is to complete the preparatory work for the section between Fenwick and the B764 Eaglesham road during 1992. The remaining length from the B764 to Malletsheugh is expected to be ready during the following year. Thereafter, start dates will be decided on the basis of the available resources and priorities at the time. Final decisions on starts are taken annually each March for the year ahead.
We recognise the importance of all these schemes. In considering allocations to Strathclyde regional council, therefore, and in drawing up the trunk road programme, we have given high priority to the funding necessary to construct the new Ayr road route.
The new road from Dumbreck to Malletsheugh comes in two sections. First, within the Glasgow city boundary —from the end of the M77 to Darnley—the new road would be a local road constructed by Strathclyde regional council. Outside the city boundary, from Darnley southwards to Malletsheugh, the new link would be a trunk road. However, the two sections of the road have to be co-ordinated. It would make no sense for one section of the road to end in the middle of a field at Darnley, without the other to meet it.
Within Glasgow, and on the outskirts of the city, the A77 is mainly single carriageway. It carries large volumes of local, long-distance and commuter traffic. I am aware that current volumes of traffic in south-west Glasgow cause extensive congestion for considerable periods of the day. The new road will provide substantial benefits to through traffic by reducing delays, will benefit local traffic by easing congestion and will improve road safety by reducing road-user conflicts. The scheme benefits are sufficient to provide, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, a high economic return on investment.
The Scottish Office has said that it will be prepared to proceed with the trunk road section when Strathclyde regional council constructs the new local road. Indeed, as the greater part of the route is Strathclyde's, we cannot move on the trunk road portion until it has let contracts. The key, therefore, to whether the new route proceeds is its willingness to devote resources to its part of the new link.
With that point in mind, in our capital allocations to Strathclyde regional council for 1990–91, we added £5.2 million to the provisional figure previously notified. Strathclyde's allocation was therefore increased to £73.6 million. That increase included £2.7 million on the 580 assumption, which was notified to the council, that work on the Ayr road route would begin. At that time, Strathclyde's financial plan showed that only £28.6 million of its planned expenditure was legally committed. The regional council therefore had considerable flexibility, with the balance, £45 million, being available to accommodate the rest of its programme, including the Ayr road route.
However, when we make allocations to local roads authorities, taking into account the priorities that those authorities have stated in their transport policies and programmes, documents and plans, we do not give projects specific consent. In other words, the authority can, within the allocation announced, use its spending consents as it sees fit.
The reasoning behind that approach is clear. It is for regional authorities to determine their relative priorities for investment in their area. We believe that it is for them to judge the most pressing local priorities. If one likes, that is local democracy at work.
Phase 1A of the Ayr road route from Dumbreck road to Barrhead road was programmed to start in March 1991. Phase 1B from Barrhead road to the city boundary was programmed to start in March 1992. Both parts—a total of 5.5 km—were due to finish in 1994. At its meeting on 23 October 1990, Strathclyde region's transport policies and programmes sub-committee considered options for delaying the work by 18, 30 or 42 months. It decided to recommend that work on the Ayr road route should be delayed by 30 months. That decision was confirmed by the full roads and transportation committee on 1 November 1990. The decision stems from a programme review carried out by Strathclyde roads department. The council decided that, to take account of what it saw as the wider needs of the region, it was necessary to delay the start of the Ayr road route.
Whether we like it or not, if we add together the roads and transport programmes which all Scottish authorities would like to undertake, the total requirement for capital consent in any one year would substantially exceed the amounts that can be made available. However, Strathclyde's allocation for roads and transport for 1990–91 is 45 per cent. of the Scottish total. It is the highest allocation per local road length of all mainland authorities. It is £5,600 per local road kilometre, compared with the national average of £3,200. Also, although Strathclyde has a high population density, its level of expenditure per head of population is equal to the national average and is substantially higher than for other central belt authorities.
I accept that Strathclyde has to make choices within the resources allocated to it, but I believe that we have treated Strathclyde generously. A start should, therefore, be possible on the Ayr road route if the council deploys the funds available on schemes that were at the centre of the emphasis that the council made in preparing its bid to the Scottish Office.
I shall not respond in detail to what the hon. Gentleman said about the advantages of the route for inward investment because those advantages are self-evident. There is no doubt that that view is shared by Locate in Scotland and by the Scottish Development Agency.
Strathclyde's decision to delay the Ayr road route works is most unfortunate. To return to road funding, decisions on final allocations for 1991–92 will not be taken until about February. But it is possible, given the council's decisions this year, that the relatively favourable treatment 581 that we have given Strathclyde on capital allocations will have to be reappraised. A reappraisal will be needed if the council is deploying funds on schemes which were not central to the priorities put to us. Those comments do not necessarily imply that there will be a reduction in Strathclyde's allocation next year. We shall examine carefully the council's latest financial plan and its reviewed priorities, including its other major schemes. We shall then determine final allocations for next and future years within the overall amounts available for Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the road for jobs. As he knows, the SDA identified the Bringan site at Kilmarnock as a potential high-amenity site which could be marketed on a time scale to fit with the roads improvement programme. I urge that the region take that fact fully into account.
Road safety is also relevant. We attach the highest importance to that and I must point out that the accident rate on the A77 between Glasgow and Ayr is not exceptionally high by comparison with that on other similar roads. However, we aim to reduce accidents on all roads by one third by the year 2000. We are aware that the number of fatal and of serious accidents on the A77 is a cause for serious concern, so the construction of the Ayr road route would be a major step forward in improving road safety on that important route.
I repeat the advice that I have given to the hon. Gentleman on our previous meetings. He and his constituents should address their representations to Strathclyde regional council as the key decision on when the Ayr road route proceeds is the council's. We are very disappointed that the council has decided not to begin the strategic work now. However, we believe that the council could start work on the northern part of the new road in 1991–92. We should warmly welcome a decision on those lines by the council.