HC Deb 10 February 1992 vol 203 cc772-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

11.37 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for coming to the House tonight to apply himself to the important problem of the relief road—that is what I call it—for Weston-super-Mare.

I last raised this and kindred matters in an Adjournment debate headed "Weston-super-Mare and Banwell (Roads)" on 20 November 1986. I shall quote, first from something that I said, to remind the Minister that I shall not be deterred from raising the subject again and again until our road is put right. I said then: 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."—[Official Report 20 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 792.]

I concede that the Government have contributed to the first parts of the road, and there has been some improvement in the traffic. That has not been helped by the need for digging up, over no less than three months, the other main access into the town centre.

My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who was then the Minister for Roads and Traffic—the important Government post now held by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—said: 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 Minister continued: 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 … in that.

The Minister's penultimate paragraph was: 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."—[Official Report, 20 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 796-98.]

My purpose in quoting is to paint the scene that presented itself to us, perfectly reasonably, after that debate. Again, I must be grateful to the director of highways, transport and engineering at Avon county council, Mr. Bracewell, for setting out fully the situation about stages VC and VI of the Weston-super-Mare relief road. He says: These stages of the scheme together with Stage IVB are those remaining to complete the strategy of construction of a dual carriageway from Junction 21 on the M4 into the Town Centre. Not until these stages are built will it be possible for traffic to divert off the full length of the existing road and provide the essential environmental relief to residents whose homes front onto the A370"— and to allow the traffic to flow at a decent and respectable speed even at the height of the summer season and to keep the commerce and industry of our town alive.

Mr. Bracewell continues: The County Council decided that it would make a joint bid for Stages IVB, VC and VI in its TSG bid for a commencement in 1992/93. The total value of this bid was £12,406,000 and the 93/93 expenditure was estimated at £2,088,000. The objective was to complete construction of the whole PDR early in 1995 and hence maintain the target date set previously despite slippage on other earlier stages. The County Council made this bid its first priority in its submission. The second priority was for a scheme known as the Avonmouth Link. This is a small, but essential, section of a larger scheme being promoted by the DTp to provide better access off the motorway at Junction 18 and to relieve Avonmouth of the worst effects of heavy industrial traffic. It is the County Council's view that this scheme should he promoted and fully funded by the D.Tp as part of their scheme. The County Council have tried by various means, (including a deputation) to persuade the Minister for Roads that this is the case. It has been unsuccessful in these endeavours and hence, at a late stage, was obliged to include it as a bid for TSG in the 1992/93 submission. This has been done to match the timescale for construction of the DTp's own scheme. The County Council had pleaded that any settlement on this scheme should, given the special circumstances, not be at detriment to its bid for funds for other projects. The total cost of the Avonmouth Link is £2,381,000. I have no desire or suggestion about what should happen to the Avonmouth bypass. I am sure—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) assures me—that the scheme has priority and is an urgent job. I was astonished to read in a glossy brochure produced by the Department of Transport and headed "South West Regional Brief"—I suggest that a few miles of pavement could have been built for the cost of producing the brochure—under "The Trunk Road Programme" the following sentence: and to provide a trunk road link from M5 to Avonmouth Docks, enabling motorway traffic to bypass the community of Avonmouth. So even the Minister's own Department actually believes that the bypass for Avonmouth is a trunk road. We have all believed that the Avon link road is a trunk road. The entire Avon road programme is being messed up because the Department will not accept that the main roads—the national roads—in the county should be paid for by it. I am sorry to say that I believe that, by forcing the county council to put in for transport supplementary grant, the Department has been guilty of very substantial trickery.

Now to the positive and more important aspect of the southern end of the county: Weston-super-Mare is the largest town in the old county of Somerset, yet it does not seem to be getting the attention from the Department of Transport that it deserves. We have a new railway station, paid for partly by the county council, but the high-speed trains cannot stop there because the platform is not long enough. We have half the new road, but one cannot get to it, because the essential first part, to which I have referred tonight, is not now to be completed for four years.

I have letters from the district council, the mayor and charter trustees and I know from my discussions with business men, hoteliers and those who manage our tourist industry that visitors do not expect to come off the motorway and drive straight into a traffic jam. I do not want to paint a picture of permanent disruption because—one has to be honest—the traffic does flow, but the newly completed road is now extremely busy. My hon. Friend the Minister would be amazed at how quickly the new road becomes congested, to put it mildly, at peak hours.

There are those who would like to come to Weston-super-Mare for the very good reason that it is a splendid place, but if they realise that their factories are about to be sited half an hour away from the motorway—even though they know that it is only a couple of miles —they will not come. They will go to places with better roads.

In the previous debate, I referred to the impact in sheer economic terms of the traffic delays in Banwell, for example. Within months of our building a bypass for that village, there would be a financial reward for the United Kingdom. The whole question of traffic in rapidly developing areas such as mine must be tackled in a much more determined manner.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not tell me that Avon has done well in a league table or that we have got more than our fair share in some way. I contend that the share is not big enough for anybody.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was Secretary of State for Transport, he announced—much to my pleasure and with my great support—a doubling of expenditure on roads. But where is the money? It is not forthcoming. OK, there is to be some widening of the motorways but, frankly, they should have been built wider in the first instance, and many of us told the Ministry of Transport, as it then was, that that was so. I was born and brought up in the county through which the M5 runs. I remember telling Sir Peter Agnew—all that time ago—that it should have been a three-lane road and, today, it is being made into a three-lane road.

I hope that some of my remarks may be passed to the Treasury because, although my hon. Friend the Minister will be too loyal to say so, I am sure that that is the source of our problems. In the age of the motor car and road transport, it is no longer acceptable for the Government to sit back and tell us that our road is to be given priority, then to deprive our county of that priority and cheat over the money, spending county money on roads for which it is responsible. A review of the trunk roads system, paying special attention to the problems of Weston-super-Mare and our area, is long overdue.

11.43 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope)

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has argued persuasively the case for completing the final stages of the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road. He has eloquently represented the views of his constituents, and the House can have no doubt about the strength of local feeling on this issue in Weston-super-Mare.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential that the new road should be completed. Until the final part is finished, the full benefit of the investment in the project and the environmental benefits in the residential areas on both sides of the existing A371 will not be realised. The reason for not accepting the final three stages of the road for transport supplementary grant next year has nothing to do with the Government's view of the scheme's priority in relation to other Avon county council proposals.

The problem that we faced in deciding which schemes to include in the settlement was simply one of resources. We received bids from highway authorities for more than 170 major schemes, 160 of which were genuine candidates for grant. Together they would have cost nearly £250 million in 1992–93. However, we could afford only 37 major new starts at a cost of £60 million—

Mr. Wiggin

Peanuts.

Mr. Chope

My hon. Friend may say "Peanuts", but I am sure that he understands that, with only 37 major new starts and 108 highway authorities, it is not possible for the Minister responsible for roads to please them all.

Many good schemes had to be left out and it was impossible to avoid disappointing many highway authorities with schemes that they believed were important. My hon. Friend's case is for even more public investment in the nation's road infrastructure. I share in the belief that there is a strong case for investing in roads. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and other Conservative Members take comfort from the fact that only the Conservative party is committed to such investment. The other parties, which are not represented in the Chamber this evening, believe that there should be a reduction rather than an increase in the investment in our road infrastructure.

It is a feature of the transport supplementary grant system that if we agree to fund a major scheme with grant, one that will cost over £1 million, we commit ourselves to supporting it not just for the first year, but right through to completion, and that includes supporting any reasonable increases in the cost. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare will agree with the logic of that. Without that reassurance, highway authorities would find it very difficult to embark on the larger schemes that they often initiate, some of which take several years to complete.

On the other side of the coin, by accepting the more costly and longer-term schemes in one year, we effectively pre-empt the funds available for new starts in future. That is why we had £900 million available for local road capital investment in 1992–93, but over half of that was already committed to major schemes started in earlier years. Demands also had to be met for other essential expenditure, for example, on maintenance of roads and bridges and on local road safety schemes.

Considering that the total bids in all categories amounted to almost £1.6 billion, it will be clear that difficult decisions were unavoidable. We needed to assess not only the relative priorities of 108 highway authorities, but to judge the correct overall balance between one category of expenditure and another. In the circumstances, £60 million for new major schemes was the best that we could do. Of course that is only a fraction of what highway authorities were hoping for, and to produce a reasonable list of approved schemes from this amount was no easy task. To avoid overloading future settlements with commitments inherited from previous years, it was regrettably necessary to limit the number of larger new schemes accepted for grant.

Unfortunately, the final phase of the Weston-super-Mare primary distributary road was one of those which we could not fit in. The net total cost of the proposals was estimated at £12.4 million. Some £2 million would have been spent next year. Ironically that is a prime example of those schemes now in progress which, because of their size and duration, are limiting the funds available for new major projects. It should not be forgotten that my Department has already demonstrated its commitment to the overall project. We have funded stage 1 which was finished in June 1991 at a cost of £3.621 million. That completed the link from Hutton Moor road to the town centre.

Stages 5A and 5B were accepted for TSG, and construction on both started in financial year 1990–91. Stage 5A extends Herluin way to the A371 at the southern edge of the town. It was due for completion in December 1991 and was finished early. Stage 5B is the A371 Locking Moor road diversion. The contract for that has just been let and is due for completion in January 1994. The estimated cost of the two schemes together is £9.93 million. That is no mean sum of money. The Department of Transport has therefore already committed a minimum of £13–5 million to that important roads project in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Despite the rather confusing numbering, stages 4A, 3, and 2 were finished in 1982, 1987 and 1989 respectively. Those early stages were funded by Avon county council, with contributions from developers, and without calling on the Department of Transport for financial support.

My hon. Friend has reminded me that Avon county council believes that the Department has in some way forced the Avonmouth relief road upon it. I can understand its feelings of frustration in getting approval to a road that it thinks should be funded as part of a larger scheme in the national trunk roads programme, while support is withheld from its top priority TSG scheme, but I certainly do not accept the charges of cheating. I can only reiterate that the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road was left out of the settlement not because we questioned its importance but simply because we could not afford it on this occasion. The Avonmouth relief road was included because it is another important scheme which, this year, we could afford. I am sure that my hon. Friend and other people in Avon would not have thanked me for saying that, because we could not afford the first priority scheme, we were not even prepared to consider whether we could afford the second priority scheme. That would have been perverse logic.

The Department's Avonmouth link scheme has been designed with the aim of solving the problems of congestion on the A4 at Avonmouth roundabout and queues of traffic on the M5 spur. Our proposals have recently been put to public inquiry and the inspector's report is awaited. It will need to be considered by Ministers before a decision on whether the scheme should go ahead is taken jointly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the the Environment.

Because of my involvement in that process, it would be improper for me to comment in detail on the Avonmouth scheme now, but I need to explain that, when the original proposals were subject to public consultation in 1989, there was widespread local opposition to the inclusion of a proposed flyover which would have carried traffic between the M5 and the A4 over the Avonmouth roundabout. In response to that, the flyover was omitted from the preferred route announced in November 1990. But, as a consequence, there as no longer any justification for constructing, as part of the Department's scheme, that part of the route which would have taken purely local traffic, as opposed to trunk road traffic, out of Avonmouth village. In other words, that section now known as the Avonmouth relief road no longer served any trunk road purpose. Instead, it became only a bypass for Avonmouth village.

In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Department to build the relief road as a trunk road or as a related side road. As I said to representatives who came to see me from the county council at the end of last year, it is not just my opinion off the top of my head or the opinion of my officials; it is confirmed legal opinion that it would not have been proper for the Department to fund the Avonmouth scheme any longer as a trunk road.

As a result, it was left to Avon county council to decide whether it should include the road in its programme and apply for TSG to fund it. I advised on that matter when representatives came to see me. Although the council had already included a bid for grant for the scheme in its transport policy and programme statement, it maintained its view that the Department should build it.

I suggest that the Avonmouth relief road is something of a red herring in a debate on the Weston-super-Mare primary distributary road. The Avonmouth relief road is an important new road whose benefits are indisputable; and, to put it plainly, omitting it from the recent local roads capital settlement would not have left room for acceptance of the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road.

I acknowledge the feeling in Weston-super-Mare that there is a pressing need to complete the primary distributary road as soon as possible. I assure my hon. Friend that local officials in my Department are continuing discussions with their opposite numbers in the county council and are looking at other ways of giving the scheme the fairest possible wind when we next look at the roads capital settlement. One thing is absolutely certain: for the road to be afforded, we must have a Government who are committed to major investment in our roads infrastructure. I am sure that, after my right hon. and hon. Friends have been successfully re-elected, we will again have a Government with a fresh mandate to continue our major expansion of roads investment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.