HC Deb 08 December 1994 vol 251 cc503-16

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

5.7 pm

Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke)

As a result of the arrangements in this place, we now have an opportunity which I had not expected a couple of days ago to debate in full the complex issue and the long history of the Cleddau bridge. Basically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will be aware from the petition that I have just presented, the people of Pembrokeshire are extremely concerned about the financing of the Cleddau bridge, the burden that has already fallen on the people of Pembrokeshire and its industry since its opening in 1975, and the future burden that will have to be borne by council tax payers as well as motorists and haulage contractors during the period of the new Pembrokeshire unitary authority unless significant changes are made by the Government.

This is not the first time that the issue has been debated in the House. On 19 March 1990, my Conservative predecessor, Nicholas Bennett, raised the subject with the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), although, sadly, without success. Since that Adjournment debate, a number of factors relating to the Cleddau bridge have changed and make the argument that the Welsh Office should take over its running and financing even more compelling.

It would be useful if I went over the bridge's rather sad history. It was first proposed to build a bridge across the River Cleddau in 1943, during the war, and again in 1945 when it was envisaged that the crossing should be downstream of Pembroke Dock. In 1959, there was a further proposal for a barrage across the river. None of those ideas was implemented, but the plans for a bridge were revived in 1964 and the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965 granted the council permission to build a bridge to replace a ferry which had been operating between Hobbs Point on the Pembroke Dock bank and Neyland on the northern bank of the River Cleddau or, as it is also known, the Milford Haven waterway.

The House should be aware of the enormous limitation placed on Pembrokeshire's economy in the absence of a reasonable crossing between the north and south banks of the Milford Haven waterway. Before a bridge was built, if the ferry was not running due to bad weather or because it was too late at night or too early in the morning for shift workers to be about, an individual wishing to travel from Pembroke Dock to Milford Haven, which is further downstream than Neyland, would have to travel in excess of 30 miles. Clearly, it was of a matter of great importance to the Pembrokeshire economy that the natural barrier should be bridged.

Tenders were invited in 1968. The original estimate for building the then brand new box-girder design bridge was £3,640,000. On 2 June 1970, the then partially completed bridge collapsed, tragically killing four workmen and damaging a number of properties in Pembroke Ferry, the hamlet below the bridge. Following that collapse and the collapse of bridges of similar design in Melbourne, Australia and in Munich, Germany, the Merrison committee examined the technical requirements to improve the structure before work continued.

The council accepted the Merrison committee's recommendations which involved significant strengthening of the structure that was still standing and, of course, of the new completed bridge. As a result of the adoption of those recommendations, the final capital cost when the bridge opened in 1975 was not just over £3 million but £11.83 million.

The bridge has always been a political football in Pembrokeshire and it is worth while noting how it was treated throughout the 1970s. During the election campaign in October 1974—six months before the bridge was officially opened—the then Member of Parliament for Pembroke, now Lord Crickhowell, speaking with the full authority of a Conservative spokesman on Welsh affairs, said that the Conservative Government, were they elected, would take over the cost of constructing a bridge and would abolish proposed tolls. He said: When the Pembrokeshire County Council planned the construction of the bridge they knew that it would make a great difference to the local economy but they could have had no idea of its crucial significance; they could have had no idea either that they might be faced with a disaster and a threefold increase in cost. It is quite clear that the burden of over £9 million is now too great for the ratepayers to shoulder and that any government will have to take over a substantial part of that burden … A conservative government would take urgent action to prepare for developments in the Celtic Sea and if oil were found they would see that resources were directed in those areas affected by the discoveries … It is wrong that local ratepayers should have to pay for something that is of key national significance, for the benefits of offshore oil will flow to the whole nation. We have said that Wales will benefit from offshore oil; I have now shown that we are determined to make that pledge a reality. It is worth noting that, on 2 November 1994, Marathon Oil announced the first strike of gas in the Celtic sea, 25 miles from the shores of Pembrokeshire.

Let me take the House back to 1974.

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)

I would not normally intervene during an Adjournment debate, but we are not suffering the usual time constraint. For the sake of accuracy, will my hon. Friend say whether the Lord Crickhowell to whom he referred is Nicholas Edwards, the Tory party candidate in Pembroke in 1979?

Mr. Ainger

He is one and the same. I am glad that my hon. Friend has enabled me to clarify that point.

In 1974, an inspector called Mr. J. R. Rawes reported on the proposed maximum tolls order on the Cleddau bridge. Paragraph 137 of his report stated that two thirds of the £11.83 million capital cost attributable to the Merrison committee's recommendation on the extra work needed to strengthen the bridge should be paid by the Exchequer. It continued: This financial assistance from central funds should be an outright grant, inclusive of interest and inflation". Two thirds amounts to approximately £7 million. Inspector Rawes also said that if the county council subsequently won any damages from the designers or builders of the bridge no part of that settlement should be claimable by, or payable to, the National Exchequer, as the transaction derives entirely from the provisions of the 1965 Act for which Dyfed County Council are alone accountable. The bridge opened on 20 March 1975, burdened from the outset by its tragic history and debts of some £11.83 million. Tolls were set at 15p for motor bikes, 30p for cars and 60p for heavy vehicles. Following a claim by the county council in the financial year 1978–79, it received some £3 million in insurance compensation from the designers and builders of the bridge.

The political history of the bridge did not end there. It again became a political football during the 1979 general election when the then Nicholas Edwards was still representing Pembroke. At his adoption meeting prior to the election he said that the pledge that he had given in the 1974 election to abolish tolls was no longer valid. He continued: A pledge made at the time of an election does not stand if the party is defeated"— that is also true in this case or, from the experience that we have had during the past two years, when the party wins— but in any case the situation today is totally different from that in 1974. Nicholas Edwards referred to the inspector's recommendation that the Government should pay for the Merrison elements, and said: I now want to make it perfectly clear that a Conservative government would accept that recommendation and a commitment to that effect is contained in our Welsh election manifesto. I do not need to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on the Front Bench, nor the Minister, that, following the 1979 general election, the then hon. Member for Pembroke became the Secretary of State for Wales, and on 21 December 1979, the Welsh Office gave Dyfed county council not a grant but a £4 million interest-free loan, repayable over 40 years at some £100,000 a year. That neither satisfied the commitment to pay in full the cost of the Merrison recommendations, which were £7 million; nor was it an outright grant—it was a loan. In that year, because of the burdening debt accruing on the interest, tolls were raised—to 35p for cars and 70p for heavy vehicles. In 1985, tolls were raised again—to 50p for cars and £1 for heavy vehicles.

As I said in my opening remarks, this is not the first time the issue has been debated, and I shall refer to my predecessor's Adjournment debate of 19 March 1990. The right hon. Member for Conwy, who was then Minister of State, said that the figure of £4 million had been arrived at because of the £3 million legal settlement won by the council, which had been discounted against the deemed £7 million cost of the Merrison element.

That totally contradicted the inspector's recommendation that compensation should not be claimable by the Exchequer, and also the assurance given by the then hon. Member for Pembroke and subsequent Secretary of State for Wales, Nicholas Edwards. The right hon. Member for Conwy said in 1990 that only a loan, not a grant, could be paid, because the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965 prevented toll income being used to pay for grant-aided roads. In other words, if a grant was given, one could not charge tolls. If one insisted on doing so, one could not give a grant. That was true in 1979 when the loan of £4 million was made, but it certainly was not true when he said that in March 1990. I am not saying that the hon. Member for Conwy was trying to mislead the House, but he was incorrect, and I shall go on to that later.

In that Adjournment debate, the then Minister of State went on to say: Further Government assistance is not an option."—[Official Report, 19 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 988.] But by then the Dyfed Act 1987 was in force. That had repealed totally the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965. In a letter to me dated 8 February 1994, the then Minister of State repeated that the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965 prevented a grant being given and made no mention of the fact that it had been repealed. I then wrote back to him pointing out that the Act had been repealed, and in a further letter to me on 11 April this year he said: I accept that the Dyfed Act 1987 has now repealed the Pembrokeshire County Council Act and this Act contains no similar provision restricting the use of the toll income. That was as true in 1990, at the time of the first Adjournment debate on the subject, as it is now in 1994.

There is therefore no legal impediment to prevent the Welsh Office from giving grant aid instead of a loan to cover the spiralling debts on the bridge. In the letter of 11 April, the Minister went on to say: However, the question remains as to whether the Department can justify the provision of any further assistance towards the Bridge. Perhaps the real question still remains whether the Welsh Office is willing to honour the election pledge given in 1979 now that there are no longer any legal impediments. I think that it is a question of political will.

On 26 May this year, the Minister—

Mr Ron Davies

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman rises, it is, of course, a convention of the House that this is a Back-Bench debate. With the permission of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who has the Adjournment debate, other hon. Members may take part, but by tradition not from the Front Bench. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) wishes to intervene or contribute, he really should change the position where he is sitting.

Mr. Ainger

I have no objection to any hon. Member from any position in the House making a contribution to the debate. We are not pressured by time. It is an important issue—certainly for my constituents—and it touches on a number of very interesting national points as well.

On 26 May this year, the Minister of State wrote to me after I had written to request financial assistance and trunking, following a delegation that I had led with council officials from South Pembrokeshire district council, Preseli-Pembrokeshire district council and also representatives of Dyfed county council. Even though up to 9,000 vehicles a day cross that bridge, the Minister of State said that the traffic on the bridge remained mainly local.

Despite efforts to contain the growing deficit, in October 1993, tolls were again raised from 50p to 75p for cars and from £1 to £1.50 for heavy goods vehicles. The tragic history to date means that when the new Pembrokeshire unitary authority comes into being on 1 April 1996, it will inherit an estimated debt of up to £40 million. I shall give a breakdown of that, because certain issues are worth examining in detail. Some £5 million of the projected debt is the remaining capital loan debt. Part of it is owed to the local authority loans pool. Some £2.65 million is the remaining interest-free loan being repaid to the Welsh Office. Another £4.8 million is the cumulative operating deficit on the bridge account, which is separate from other county council finances. More than £11 million of interest is owed to council tax payers to meet deficiencies in years when there is a deficit in the bridge account—when toll income does not cover costs, including interest charges. Between £15 million and £20 million is also required for strengthening costs due to be incurred between 1996 and 1999 to meet European regulations that will allow heavy lorries of up to 44 tonnes on to British roads. The county engineer cannot give an accurate estimate until full engineering surveys are carried out, but his estimate is that the figure will probably work out at between £15 million and £20 million.

Dyfed's current population is about 350,000, of whom some 124,600 are band D-equivalent council tax payers. When the bridge is transferred to the new Pembrokeshire county council in April 1996 there will be only a third of the current number of council tax payers, and the burden will obviously fall far more heavily on that smaller population.

The Welsh Office has told me that the county council is really at fault for not raising tolls more often in the past to cover deficits. In his letter of 26 May, the Minister of State wrote that if implemented with regular proposals to increase tolls to cover the increased costs, the forecast deficits should be containable. In the same letter, he questioned the interest liability on the operating deficit—that £11 million. He said that the council "may apply interest" at 10 per cent., but had chosen not to do so thus far and could not do so retrospectively.

In fact, interest has been calculated. Sections 24 and 25 of the Dyfed Act 1987 clearly intend local taxpayers to be compensated for covering deficits. Section 25 states: Any deficiency in the revenue of the bridge in any financial year shall be made good in the first instance out of the reserve fund (if any) formed in connection with the bridge and if there be no such reserve fund or such reserve fund be insufficient for the purpose then out of the other moneys of the county council and in such case any such other moneys shall be repayable out of any future revenue of the bridge. Council tax payers are to be reimbursed, and interest can be paid only out of future revenue. The £11 million plus interest may be only a paper debt, but the uncertainty should be lifted from the new Pembrokeshire county council. In 1992–93, the Department of Transport provided for expenditure of some £43.5 million for exactly the same kind of debt in connection with the Humber bridge; I shall say more about that later.

The effect of raising tolls still further could be devastating. On 22 February 1994, Huw Morse, Dyfed's county treasurer, wrote to the Minister of State giving deficit forecasts based on the cost of strengthening the bridge—a cost of between £15 million and £20 million. Those are the most up-to-date estimates; as I have said, a full engineering report would be necessary to provide a final and accurate estimate.

Mr. Morse's projections show that if the strengthening cost is at the lower end of the scale—around £15 million—and traffic grows in line with national Department of Transport forecasts, toll increases of 6.65 per cent. every year would be needed to reduce the deficit to zero by the year 2022. The deficit would peak at around £52.1 million in the year 2002, when tolls would have to be £1.34 for cars and £2.68 for heavy vehicles.

If the worst happened and the engineering cost was nearer £20 million, and if there was no traffic growth, tolls would have to rise by some 9.57 per cent. to remove the deficit by 2022. It would peak at about £62.2 million in the year 2002, when tolls would have to be £1.50 for cars and £3 for lorries.

In his letter, Mr. Morse told the Minister of State: As the County council is operating within a capped regime funding these costs can only be done at the expense of other services. One can imagine the critical nature of such a picture which, when added to the cash limit approach adopted for local government expenditure, will mean wholesale reductions in many of the services provided by the council. The impact on a major county like Dyfed is devastating enough but the effect on a smaller unitary authority, possibly less than a third of its size, would be catastrophic. At current levels, tolls are projected to take £1.8 million out of the economy in this financial year. It is worth noting that, because of the chronic unemployment from which my constituency suffers and because of the numerous defence closures announced just before the 1992 general election, the then Secretary of State for Wales set up the west Wales task force, giving it a budget of some £12.5 million over five years. That constituted £2.25 million of additional help for the west Wales economy. The contradiction is that, because the Welsh Office refused to take any action to assist in reducing the debt or the toll level, £1.8 million is now being taken out of our local economy.

The petition that I presented earlier, signed by approximately 10,000 people, states that the burden of the Cleddau bridge should not fall on the people of Pembrokeshire. I do not want them to bear that burden, whether as motorists, commercial operators of heavy goods vehicles or council tax payers. Our economy has suffered more than its fair share in the past few years, as a result of defence closures and unemployment that has remained persistently high. In Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock, the two main towns nearest to each side of the bridge, unemployment rates were 17.8 per cent. and 12.8 per cent. respectively in October this year, on narrow base rates.

Extracting yet higher tolls to try to contain the deficit constitutes a tax on jobs. That option, and cutting services to meet the debt burden, are both unacceptable. Many people have to cross the bridge to obtain essential services: the Minister of State will know that the Withybush general hospital is based in Haverfordwest, and the 30,000 or so people who live south of the Cleddau must cross the bridge to go to the hospital for admission or to visit relatives. People living south of the river who work in Haverfordwest or Milford Haven, in the Elf or Gulf refineries, must also cross the bridge. The same is true of people living in the north of the county who work in the Texaco refinery, or at the power station on the southern side of the Milford Haven waterway.

Industry has developed on both sides of the Haven. People living on the opposite side from their workplace will have to find an additional £7.50 a week, at current levels. The Minister may know that, sadly, west Wales has one of the lowest pay levels in the United Kingdom. This additional burden is totally unfair.

The Government really should accept their responsibility for both the economic well-being of the area and the whole trunk road system. The Welsh Office has been asked several times to designate the bridge part of the trunk road network, most recently in December last year. Trunking would clearly be the best solution to avoid the potential disaster that faces the new Pembrokeshire county council, along with recognition by central Government of their responsibilities. Clearly, the bridge is, in effect, part of the national road network. It is bracketed to the south by the A477, which is trunked and only 1 km away from the southern side of the bridge. To the north of the bridge, the A476 is only some 6 km away. The 8 km stretch containing the bridge is the only section of major road linking south, west and north Wales which is not trunked.

The Welsh Office's refusal to help the people of Pembrokeshire sharply contrasts with the Department of Transport's attitude towards Humber bridge, which currently has debts of more than £430 million. In the financial year 1992–93, the Department of Transport provided £43.5 million to the Humber Bridge Board and it has promised legislation to avoid the board having to precept local authorities to solve the problem.

It is interesting to note that, per metre of length, the Humber bridge is cheaper than Cleddau bridge. One pence of toll on Humber bridge allows one to travel 13.9 m whereas 1p of toll on Cleddau bridge allows one to travel only 10.9 m. The Government's inconsistent approach to the national importance of estuarial crossings has been highlighted in a report by the Select Committee on Transport in 1985. It said that tolls were a selective monopoly charge and the policy that the costs of estuarial crossings should be borne by the local population was applied inconsistently. It pointed out that the following bridges were estuarial crossings, but were untolled: Avonmouth bridge, Ballachulish bridge, Moray and Cromarty firth bridges, Friarton bridge in Perth, Runcorn-Widnes bridge, the Clyde tunnel and M8 Kingston bridge, the Medway crossing and Dornoch firth bridge.

It is worth noting that, in Wales, the Conwy tunnel and the M4 over the Usk at Newport are untolled. The new extension of the M4 at Briton Ferry, again over an estuary, is untolled. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that the new Dee crossing will not be tolled, even though its estimated cost amounts to more than £50 million.

The Select Committee on Transport report went on to say that, if the Government recognised Humber bridge's problems, they could recognise the problems of other bridges as well. It also said that assuming responsibility for debts would not mean finding cash. Debts to the Public Works Loan Board, like those owed by Dyfed county council for Cleddau bridge, and to central Government need have no effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. The report said: The transfer of responsibility for servicing all the debt to central government would only be a transfer within the public sector". Therefore, it would have no impact on the PSBR.

The Government response to that report was to reiterate the arguments about special local advantages for estuarial crossings, but they were willing to consider reasoned argument for special treatment in particular cases. In the case of Pembrokeshire, the Welsh Office has said that the liabilities of the new authority would be reflected in its standard spending assessment. Before I entered this place, I was a county councillor in Dyfed. I regularly heard Welsh Office Ministers assure local government, when particular problems were raised with them and they accepted those problems, that the money would appear in the council's rate support grant. No one was able to find it. I have heard promises like that before and it becomes extremely hard to identify where and whether extra money has been forthcoming for particular problems.

If the Welsh Office is to provide extra money in the standard spending assessment or the revenue support grant, why does not it take over financial responsibility directly rather than use the new Pembrokeshire authority as a third party? Its approach implies that the Welsh Office accepts that there is a problem and money needs to be found, so why does not it go the whole way and take over full responsibility? If it will not provide extra money, it is meaningless to say that the burden of Cleddau bridge will be reflected in the new authority's settlement.

It is clear that the new Pembrokeshire authority, which has been welcomed by everyone in my constituency, will face a massive financial problem because of the bridge. The Minister has been warned by the treasurer of the outgoing county council of a potential catastrophe. The problem arises from an undertaking that was made, not even by the present council, but by the previous one. It was greatly worsened by circumstances that were not of that authority's own making. There has been a fatal collapse of the bridge and the problem has been exacerbated still further by the Government's failure to live up to a pledge to provide help. The problem is likely to be doubled again because of the circumstances—the need to strengthen the bridge to meet new legislative requirements, which no one could have foreseen when the bridge was first built. For all those reasons, it would be a clear abdication of responsibility for the Welsh Office to refuse to help.

This is now the second Adjournment debate on this subject. The first was raised by a Conservative Member and this one has been raised by a Labour Member. I urge the Minister to accept that Cleddau bridge can and should be treated in the same way as the Dee crossing, the Briton Ferry crossing and the Conwy tunnel. The Welsh Office should accept its responsibility.

5.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones)

The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has raised concerns about various matters relating to Cleddau bridge and to the effect on his constituents. I noticed that he did it in a way that sought to emulate the standards of his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Nicholas Bennett. In going through so much history, I feel that I, too, am following in the footsteps of predecessors—my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell and my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who was Minister of State.

Before we go too much into recycling, the reaction might be, "What is new about going down this road or going across this bridge?" The bridge is owned and operated by Dyfed county council. Apart from certain reserve powers possessed by the Secretary of State of Transport with regard to the revision of tolls, the county council has sole responsibility for charging, collecting and reviewing tolls under the Dyfed Act 1987.

It was always intended that the bridge should be a self-financing project, with debt charges being recovered over a 50-year period. Those charges, together with operation and maintenance costs, are met by tolls levied on users of the bridge. That was clear to the then Pembrokeshire county council at the outset and has remained the case since.

The bridge opened to traffic in March 1975. Construction costs increased from the original estimate of £3 million to £12 million on completion. The increase was mainly due to a delay during construction following the collapse of the bridge superstructure and the need to comply subsequently with the recommendations of the Merrison committee on box-girder bridges.

The Government inspector who took the public inquiry into a tolls review in 1974, under the previous legislation contained in the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965, recommended that the additional costs to the county council of applying the Merrison committee's standards should be transferred from local ratepayers to the Exchequer. The inspector estimated those costs to be £7 million or more.

Dyfed county council, in an out-of-court settlement with the consulting engineers who designed the bridge, obtained compensation of £3 million. That left a sum of£4 million attributable to the Merrison requirements. The Government took the view that, because of the exceptional circumstances, it was appropriate to give assistance to the county council on a one-off basis. A £4 million interest-free loan that was repayable over 40 years was, therefore, made to the council. That represented a full response to the commitment made in 1979 by the then Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell.

In 1979, the only way in which the Government could provide financial assistance to the county council was through an interest-free loan. Grant aid was not possible under the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965, under whose powers the bridge was constructed. If a grant had been paid, toll receipts could not have been used towards any construction, maintenance or improvement costs. As I understand it, Parliament's intention in 1965, under the then Labour Government, was to prevent tolls from being used to meet bridge costs that were also grant aided.

Mr. Ainger

I accept what the Minister has said about the legal impediment—I, too, referred to it in my speech—but the argument concerns whether the loan should have been for £4 million or £7 million. Inspector Rawes argued that the loan should not take into account any compensation that the county council was to receive as a result of a legal challenge against the consulting engineer. Does the Minister accept that the £4 million loan did not fully meet the recommendation made by Inspector Rawes?

Mr. Jones

No. As I understand it, the recommendation was that none of the compensation should go to the Exchequer. It did not; it went to Dyfed county council. To comply, the Government gave a grant for what the county council had not obtained by compensation to ensure that that bill did not fall on Dyfed county council.

As the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, and as was confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy, the Dyfed Act 1987 has repealed the old Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965. I accept that the 1987 Act contains no similar provision restricting the use of toll income. I do not believe, however, that the financial projections prepared by Dyfed county council justify the need for further central Government assistance towards the bridge. Traffic figures and income projections show that, if the highway authority behaves responsibly in reviewing and setting tolls, future revenue will be sufficient to meet future costs. The projections indicate that the forecast deficits on the bridge should be containable without grant assistance, subject to regular increases in tolls to cover increased costs, such as the proposed strengthening programme.

In March this year, the balance on the interest-free loan stood at £2.6 million, repayable over the next 26 years. The actual total debt was £5.1 million and is steadily declining year by year. The large accumulated deficits, which are often quoted, are misleading. I know that the hon. Gentleman seeks to guard the most extreme case when he arrives at his £40 million projection and the size of future tolls.

The county council is empowered to charge interest at 10 per cent. per annum on deficiencies in the revenue on the bridge, but it has chosen not to do so. It is precluded from introducing retrospective charging of such interest. In fact, the bridge generated satisfactory surplus from 1986 to 1992. The 1992–93 deficit of £257,000 was primarily due to higher than usual maintenance charges. The bridge managed to break even in 1993–94.

In response to the Select Committee's 1986 report on tolled crossings, the Government said that they were unable to accept the recommendation that they should write off or discharge the debts of tolled crossings. The Government felt there was no reason that the Exchequer should assume responsibilities for obligations freely incurred by the promoting authorities in accordance with their enabling legislation. It was felt that most crossings were either viable or could become so under prudent financial management. That does not, of course, include the exceptional case of the Humber bridge, which would represent a debt of £220 per person per year as local tax had it not been treated in a different way. The arrangement for that bridge is the legacy that we had to take on from a Labour Government, who were desperate to win a by-election.

The 1991 annual inspection of the Cleddau bridge showed that major items of work were necessary in the following 10 years. In addition, with European legislation introducing a 40 tonne weight limit for vehicles from January 1999, it will be necessary to carry out an assessment of the structure to determine its capacity to carry such loads. An initial assessment by the county council shows that the maintenance and strengthening work will cost between £5 million and £20 million.

Resources for assessing and strengthening bridges are provided via the local government revenue settlement, but strengthening work is not the only option. The costs and benefits of that work need to be assessed. It may be—I can say no more than that—more sensible for Dyfed county council to consider whether, subject to complying with the necessary statutory requirements, weight restrictions might be applied to the bridge.

Under arrangements agreed with local authorities, transport grant can be available for major road improvements. Priority for transport grant is given to road improvements costing more than £5 million and which meet value-for-money criteria. I would not rule out the consideration of a transport grant bid to strengthen the Cleddau bridge. In the absence of an assessment showing that strengthening would be justified, it seems unlikely that such a bid would be supported within the parameters of the scheme. I will, of course, consider evidence which the authority may wish to provide.

The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that, following local government reorganisation, responsibility for the bridge will pass to the new Pembrokeshire unitary authority. He is right, too, when he says that the debt associated with the bridge will also transfer to the new authority. He ignores, however, two important points: first, the new authority will inherit the asset and receive the benefit of toll income; and, secondly, the allowance within the new authority's standard spending assessment for debt charges will reflect its total debt portfolio. The creation of the new authority represents a reversion to the original authority that introduced the legislation to build the bridge. I know that the new authority is warmly welcomed in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as our popular reforms are usually greeted throughout Wales.

The failure of Dyfed county council to use its powers under its veto to consider and, if necessary, revise regularly the level of tolls has contributed to the bridge's present financial position. Tolls did not increase for eight years between 1985 and 1993.

The hon. Gentleman has repeated the calls that have been made previously for the A477 between Pembroke Dock and Johnston on the A4076 to be made into a trunk road. The trunk road network is a national system of routes for through traffic. While, at peak times, up to 9,000 vehicles per day might use the Cleddau bridge, in the main it deals with local rather than through traffic. According to the latest statistics for 1992–93, the average is even lower than 9,000, because a total of 2,582,108 vehicles crossed the bridge, which I equate with an average of slightly under 7,400 a day. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the third Dee crossing, which is used by 24,000 vehicles a day. The new link with the M4, Fabian way, is also a relevant consideration because it carries 30,000 vehicles a day.

The bridge was provided by the local authority to meet the local need, and no evidence has been provided to suggest that it meets a broader national need. As the hon. Gentleman accepted, the area already has good access to the trunk road network at Pembroke Dock and at Johnston on the A4076. Those links provide good access to the dual carriageway at St. Clears via the A477 and A40 and thereafter to the M4. Those links are trunk roads.

The Government's commitment to improving road communications in Wales is clearly demonstrated by a high level of expenditure. Since 1979, more than £2 billion has been spent on the construction and improvement of 25 miles of the M4 and more than 160 miles of trunk road. Nine major improvement schemes providing another 30 miles of motorway and trunk road are under construction.

The rate of spend per head of population in Wales is greater than in England and Scotland. This high level of investment will continue with expenditure of about £200 million planned to be spent on trunk roads in the current financial year. Plans for 1995–96 will be announced shortly.

Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales undertook a review of our trunk road priorities in Wales. These were subsequently detailed in our document "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review". Our main strategic objectives for Wales are extending the A55 dualling in the north across Anglesey and, in the south, completion and further improvement of the M4 and dualling the A465.

Completion of the M4 will be realised in four days' time when the two remaining sections of the "M4 missing link" between Baglan and Lonlas are finished. We will then have a continuous motorway of some 220 miles from Pont Abraham in Dyfed right through to London. Moving eastwards along the M4, work is progressing on the Brynglas tunnels-Malpas relief road scheme and on the approach roads to the second Severn crossing. Future M4 proposals include widening the Castleton to Coryton and Magor to Newport—Coldra—sections of the M4 and we are assessing responses in the recently completed second public consultation on the route for the proposed M4 relief motorway around Newport.

Those improvements to the M4 underline our commitment to improving road links to west Wales. "Roads in Wales" confirms that improving the A40 to Fishguard and the A477 to Pembroke are high priorities. On the A40, work on the Whitland bypass is due to start next month and preparation work on the Fishguard western bypass is well advanced. Public consultation will take place this month on the planned Robeston-Wathen bypass. A preferred route for the A477 Sageston-Redberth bypass has recently been announced. Also on the A477, the improvement at Red Roses junction is being advanced and we are considering the scope for further improvements on the section between Llanddowror and Red Roses. Those improvements are designed to enable traffic to flow freely. Further improvements will be brought forward where those are justified.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to supporting the economy of west Wales, particularly through the west Wales task force. I am glad that he acknowledges our action in setting up the task force and providing the sums of money required. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that unemployment has been falling in Wales, as it has been throughout the country.

I have looked at the unemployment figures for travel-to-work areas, and I note that in Haverfordwest unemployment has fallen from 11.7 per cent. in October of last year, to 9.9 per cent. in October this year. Similarly, in south Pembrokeshire, unemployment is down from 14.4 per cent. to 10.7 per cent. In Dyfed, unemployment is down from 9.5 per cent. to 8.2 per cent. That spread of figures compares appropriately with the fall in unemployment for Wales from 10 per cent. to 8.8 per cent.

Mr. Ainger

There is a peculiar reason for that fall in Pembrokeshire between October 1993 and October 1994, which was the fact that the Texaco refinery blew up in July 1994. Literally hundreds of new jobs were created in a short period to make good the refinery. Overall, we were still no better off in October 1994 than we were in October 1993. The fall in unemployment is merely because of the work carried out on the refinery.

Mr. Jones

Part of what the hon. Gentleman says must be true. I know the significance of the Texaco incident, as I visited the refinery a few days after that dreadful explosion. But what he says is not fully borne out, either by the figures which I quoted for the whole of Dyfed—which would not be affected by Texaco alone—or by the Welsh figures which I also quoted. The hon. Gentleman is seeing the fruits and the benefits of the Government's successful economic policies coming home. They are achieving a better framework which business and industry are taking advantage of in creating new jobs in Wales. The hon. Gentleman should know that Wales is leading the UK, as the UK, in turn, is leading Europe.

For the current financial year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £4.9 million package of financial allocations under the 1994–95 round of the strategic development scheme in support of a range of projects which will benefit the west Wales task force area. Nearly 800 bids were submitted under the 1995–96 round and an announcement can be expected shortly.

I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman as he would wish. The picture which he paints of, on the one hand, responsible action by Dyfed county council and a major problem looming for the new unitary authority and, on the other, an uncaring and miserly Welsh Office does not reflect the facts. The county council is already in receipt of a £4 million interest-free loan. That was an exceptional measure and was taken in specific recognition of the unique circumstances of the bridge following its collapse during construction. The new unitary authority will inherit an asset and its standard spending assessment will take account of servicing its loan debt. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not persuaded that there is a case for further assistance.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Six o'clock.