HC Deb 23 May 1994 vol 244 cc156-64

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

11.57 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss (Cambridgeshire, North-East)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important matter of the A47 trunk road improvements. I thank colleagues and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), who both have a keen constituency interest in the road, for being here at this late hour for the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his attendance to reply to the debate.

I have to declare an interest and I do so with some ambivalence because if the road is dualled it is likely to take half of my front garden. However, the road is important for my constituency and is vital to the long-term economic interests of my constituents.

My speech will contain no criticism of the Minister, who has always been extremely courteous and helpful and I have brought deputations to see him on the matter. But, of course, Departments of State get matters wrong and Governments make mistakes. The thrust of my argument will be to show that the Minister and the Department have got it wrong in their proposals for the A47.

We need to set aside emotion. Bypasses and roads are very often the subject of great emotion. I propose to set down the argument tonight, because I believe that the case can be won on its own merits. I would argue for a co-ordinated policy, where Government Departments worked together with an integrated policy for regional development. Improved transport links have as critical an influence on economic development in sparsely populated and relatively isolated peripheral areas as any other single issue. Conversely, to deny regions adequate transport links is to confine them in economic terms to the second division.

The A47 in Cambridgeshire came out very badly in the recent trunk road review of the Department of Transport, which set out the Government's proposals for a revised and prioritised programme". The 1989 White Paper entitled "Roads for Prosperity" gave as a stated aim a greatly expanded motorway and trunk road programme to relieve congestion". The A47 was designated for dualling along the whole of its length, from Peterborough to Norwich, a total of some 54 miles. There was further endorsement of that policy in the paper "Trunk Roads, England into the 1990s", which confirmed that the A47 will become a dual carriageway from the A l to the west of Peterborough to Norwich. Schemes in preparation in my constituency on 1 January 1990 included the Peterborough to Thorney improvement —we were promised the preferred route by 1992—and the Thorney bypass, where we were told to expect orders in the winter of 1990–91.

It would not be an exaggeration to claim that the 1994 review decimates those programmes. Lengthy sections of the A47 in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk were withdrawn altogether, including the section between Thorney and Guyhirn. Others were placed in the category of "longer-term improvements". In that category came Peterborough to the west of Thorney, and the Guyhirn to Wisbech section, including the Wisbech bypass. As priority 3 schemes, design work will not even start on them for some 10 years, and construction is therefore most unlikely to begin much before 2015. I suppose that I should seek some consolation in that in the sense that my garden will not be lost for another 20 years, but from my constituency point of view, that time lag is quite unacceptable.

Although the A47 Walpole to Tilney bypass in west Norfolk was given the go-ahead recently, the only scheme in Cambridgeshire to go into the active programme, and then only as a priority 2, was the Thorney bypass.

The Government's stated objectives for their roads programme, as set out in the 1989 White Paper, and unchanged by this year's trunk road review, is first to assist economic growth by reducing transport costs; secondly, to improve the environment by removing through traffic from unsuitable roads in towns and villages; and, thirdly, to enhance road safety. Those objectives would certainly attract universal support, and it is against them that the case for the A47 should be measured.

Let us start with the region's economy. Heavy traffic flows, delays, accidents and over-capacity all put up transport costs and are a serious deterrent to attracting businesses to locate in the region. The design capacity for the single-carriageway A47 is 13,000 vehicles per day. Although the average along the whole of its length is below that at just over 10,000 vehicles per day, that hides significant variations: for example, more than 22,500 vehicles per day on the Eye bypass; 17,000 vehicles per day between Guyhirn and Wisbech; and 11,800 vehicles per day between Thorney and Guyhirn. That vehicular flow is seriously exacerbated by the heavy use of the road by agricultural implements at particular times of the year.

Overall traffic flow has grown by some 60 per cent over the past 10 years, equal to an annual growth rate of 5 per cent. per annum. That compares with the national growth in traffic of 40 per cent. over the same period. Forecast increased traffic growth throughout Cambridgeshire is in the order of 45 per cent. to 60 per cent. in the years 1991 to 2006. That compares with a target range of some 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. nationally.

The upgrading of the A47 was a cornerstone of regional development strategy for East Anglia. Regional planning guidance note 6 for East Anglia in 1991, although acknowledging the spectacular success of parts of the region, drew attention to areas of slower growth and higher unemployment in the northern and eastern peripheries and the more remote rural areas—for example, north Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, which are served by the A47.

Wisbech is specifically mentioned in RPG6 as still to attract its share of the economic growth and prosperity enjoyed by the rest of Cambridgeshire. Paragraph 28 states: Generally the effect of the trunk road programme … will be to reduce the remoteness of the less prosperous areas and assist in providing more opportunities for economic development in them. Paragraph 29, however, goes on to say that the development framework for the region is expected to provide for some dispersal of investment in jobs from the more prosperous and congested areas in the west and Cambridge in particular, to those areas to the east and north, where the improvement in trunk roads is expected to increase their attractiveness for economic development and growth. It is debatable whether the issue could be stated more clearly and unequivocally.

The strategy was fully endorsed by the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities, which concluded that investment in the Al1/A47 will enhance the prospects for Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Wisbech, and the Rural Development Areas. Although the A11 is scheduled for improvements, a failure to improve the road network in the northern and eastern parts of the region will threaten the prospects for growth and investment in the most economically disadvantaged part of East Anglia."

Support for the strategy does not stop with SCEALA, however. Cambridgeshire county council, Peterborough city council, Fenland district council and Kings Lynn and West Norfolk borough council are all very supportive of the dualling of the A47. In its structure plan review—deposit plan 1993—Cambridgeshire county council indicated that, where investment in roads was necessary, priority would be given to schemes that stimulated economic development and employment growth in the north and east of the county, and both Peterborough and Wisbech are identified target centre locations for generating employment.

The unemployment statistics for Wisbech underline the point. In 1989, the unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire as a whole was 2.7 per cent.; in the Wisbech travel-to-work area, it was 4.5 per cent. In 1991, the rate in Cambridgeshire as a whole was 6.2 per cent.; it was 8.7 per cent. in Wisbech. In 1993, it was 7.6 per cent. and a substantial 11.4 per cent. in the Wisbech travel-to-work area.

Through its scrutiny and acceptance of the Cambridgeshire structure plan and RPG6, the Department of the Environment has accepted the logic of the case for development and road improvements to go hand in hand; but another Department—the Department of Trade and Industry—has had an even more direct involvement in the economy of the region. In 1993, after successful lobbying, several areas in East Anglia were designated intermediate assisted areas. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that two of those areas were the Wisbech and Great Yarmouth travel-to-work areas. The single ingredient that those areas have in common is their dependence on the A47.

Separately, but at about the same time, a case was submitted to the European Commission in Brussels—strongly supported by both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment—for parts of East Anglia to qualify for EC structural funds under objective 5b status, the category dealing with areas suffering from significant unemployment in agriculture. In recognition of the relative economic disadvantage of the region, four areas were designated under objective 5b, two of which straddle the A47. Again, the Wisbech travel-to-work area and part of west Norfolk featured strongly, together with mid-Norfolk—based on Swaffham —and Lowestoft.

The other European dimension is the lobby to include the A47 in the trans-European road network, on the basis of its potential importance as a strategic route linking mainland Europe with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is understood that the Department of Transport sought the inclusion of the A47 in that network, but that that was not accepted by the Commission because of the absence of a roll-on, roll-off link from Great Yarmouth to mainland Europe.

Mr. Michael Carttiss (Great Yarmouth)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Mannin line roll on/roll off ferry from Great Yarmouth to Ijmuiden has doubled its sailings since the loss of the Norfolk line connection with Schevenigen in Holland two years ago? With the addition to the European Union, which we shall shortly welcome, of Sweden, Norway and Finland, the route through Ijmuiden into northern Europe and Scandinavia becomes even more important. The need for the A47 not only to be dualled beyond Norwich to Great Yarmouth—what we call the Acle straight—but its designation, with the support of the Government, as a trans-European network becomes more important with the expansion of the European Union than it was before, and it was important before.

Mr. Moss

I am grateful for that timely intervention. I knew that the roll on/roll off link had been reinstated, but the most important fact is that we are unlikely to get support from Brussels if our Government do not earmark the A47 for significant improvement and give it high priority in our national road programme.

I turn to the second of the Department of Transport's objectives—improvement of the environment. I have alluded to the higher than average growth in traffic in north Cambridgeshire and to the fact that on some stretches of the A47—notably the Eye bypass and the Guyhirn to Wisbech stretch—traffic flows are respectively 30 per cent. to 80 per cent. above the road's capacity. Any reduction in flow or increase in capacity will have a dramatic effect on the environmental amenity of settlements along the road, and by far the most critical improvement would be the provision of a bypass for the village of Thorney.

Some grudging acceptance of that fact by the Department of Transport has been given since the Thorney bypass has been included in this year's review, albeit as a priority 2 scheme. I remind the Minister, however, that as recently as 3 November 1993, in his reply to my inquiry about the bypass,- he said that draft orders would be published at the end of 1994, but under the review the scheme does not have a target milestone in either 1994 or 1995. In response to another letter that I wrote only a week or so ago, I have had a reply from Lawrie Haynes, chief executive of the Highways Agency, about the Thorney bypass. He said:

It would not be meaningful at present for me to anticipate when we shall be in a position to publish our proposals as draft orders, but it will be several years away. It gives me no joy to report that the Department of Transport's most recent policies in relation to Thorney are in tatters and are totally lacking in credibility. Fears were expressed that the proposed traffic-calming measures for the village were in some way in lieu of a bypass, and with the most recent announcement I am sure that villagers will conclude that their original expectations have come to fruition.

There is an overwhelming case for the early completion of the Thorney bypass. It is compatible with all the Government's objectives and it is strongly supported locally. The people of Thorney have been kept waiting for some 50 years for a bypass and the moral case is powerful because of the number of times promises have been made but not kept. I ask the Minister at least to give some indication of the target date for the publication of the order.

The third of the Department's objectives is to enhance road safety. Accident rates on the A47 within the county of Cambridgeshire are 23 per cent. higher than the national average for existing rural area roads. That is 0.43 injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres, compared with the national average of 0.33. Again, that average masks considerable variations.

The worst section for accidents is that between Eye and Thorney, with double the national average—0.66 injuries and accidents per 1 million vehicle kilometres. Furthermore, it is a section of the A47 which featured in the review programme under the category "longer-term improvement". As I have already said, that could be 20 years away. As an accident black spot, it is closely followed by the Thorney to Guyhirn section, which has 0.56 accidents per 1 million vehicle kilometres, but the review removed any improvement of that section of the road from the programme entirely, a decision that defies all logic under criteria set down by the Department itself.

According to the Department's own figures for 1992, fatal crashes on the A47 in the North West Anglia health authority area cost about £9.2 million. When that is added to the £4.1 million for non-fatal crashes, the total cost to the economy reaches £13.3 million. If all the projects along the A47 in north-west Anglia were completed, I estimate that the total cost would be between £70 million and £80 million, but cutting serious accidents would mean a pay-back period of between five and seven years, which is an excellent return by any standards.

The A47 is a route of major strategic importance to the economically disadvantaged parts of northern East Anglia. Potentially, it is also a key route for the European Commission's trans-European road network. Upgrading of the A47 is regarded by local authorities as essential for the achievement of the Government's regional strategy for East Anglia, encouraging economic growth in the area and maximising the benefits to the local economy of the recent granting of objective 5b and intermediate assisted area status.

The revised roads programme acknowledges the importance of the A11 which, with the A47 to the east of Norwich, provides an important route linking the M11 to Great Yarmouth. By the same logic, it should also acknowledge the importance of linking the A1 west of Peterborough through the northern part of East Anglia to Great Yarmouth and the benefits that that would bring to the objective 5b and assisted areas along that route.

The A47 is unpleasant and dangerous for road users. Drivers do not like using it, but there is little alternative. Drivers working for the Eastern Counties Omnibus Company hate driving on the A47 and try hard to swap rosters to avoid routes that use the road. Given the forecast increase in traffic, the A47 in Cambridgeshire will soon be stretched beyond its design capacity and, as traffic increases, the accident rates are bound to worsen.

The Department of Transport seems to be under attack in certain parts of the country for building roads that local people do not want, but we want this road. The Department will have no problem in getting the road accepted by local authorities and will have the full support of my constituents. The case for the road is overwhelming according to all the objectives set out by the Department. I believe that the Department needs to consult more closely with the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry, both of which have agreed regional economic strategies for my constituency and the surrounding areas. I ask the Minister to liaise with his colleagues and to think again.

12.17 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)

I shall be brief because I know that the Minister wants some time for his wind-up speech.

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said. When the White Paper was published just the other day, there was a sense of disbelief in west Norfolk. As my hon. Friend said, the A47 had been earmarked as a strategic route in the 1989 White Paper and there was to be dualling along its entire length. At that stage, there was rejoicing, but there was a sense of let-down when the road was downgraded in the new programme.

We are very concerned about the Hardwick roundabout in particular. The scheme is ready at the end of the runway, and the draft orders were published back in May last year. There have been no objections to the scheme. About three years ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the then Secretary of State for Transport, said that there was no reason why it could not be built within two years. We were very confident that the scheme was to be announced as a new start this year, so one can imagine my sense of total disbelief and anger when I saw in the review that it was to be not a priority 1 but a priority 2 scheme.

We are also concerned about the Middleton-East Winch bypass, which is down in the review as a single-lane bypass. Of course we need the bypass very badly. To see it down as a single-carriageway scheme makes no sense at all when, in the mid-1970s, the Swaffham bypass on the A47 slightly further along was dualled and, going west, the South Lynn bypass was dualled. It makes no sense, 20 or 25 years on, to build a new bypass as a single carriageway.

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could comment on those two important local points for my constituency. Apart from that, I entirely concur with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East.

12.20 am
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on securing the debate. I sometimes wonder whether the constituents of any Member of Parliament realise the lengths to which their representatives go to obtain these debates. More than that, I wonder whether they realise how much effort a Member of Parliament puts into discussing problems with Ministers in the interests of his constituents. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a tireless champion for his constituents on these road schemes, which I know are of great importance to him and to his electors.

I also welcome the interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss). I look forward to visiting Great Yarmouth later in the year at the invitation of my hon. Friend. In the six or so minutes left to me, I cannot conceivably do justice to the depth of interest in the subject which has been displayed by my hon. Friends, but I shall do my best to make a little progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East is aware that the Government have recognised that the A47 provides an important strategic link between the industrial midlands and the east coast ports and he has rightly described what happened in the 1989 White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity". It contained proposals for improving the A47 from east of Peterborough to Norwich to dual carriageway standard. That commitment has been reaffirmed in the report of the 1994 review of the roads programme which acknowledges the importance of the A47, particularly to the east of Norwich. Together with the A11 from its junction with the M11, the A47 provides an important link to the motorway network from the port of Great Yarmouth which has, of course, recently been granted assisted area status.

I am glad to hear the strong views of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, on the question of the trans-European route network—the TERN. The question of a TERN route along the A47 is still under active consideration by my Department. We are looking again at the routes all over the country and whereas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East points out, in some parts of the country these routes are viewed with great suspicion and are apparently most unwelcome, in other parts they are seen as an opportunity. That is clearly the case here.

Our strategic programme has to be translated into actual construction. It has already, of course, brought significant improvements to the trunk road network in Cambridgeshire and the rest of East Anglia. These improvements have brought considerable benefits both for drivers and for the communities that have been relieved of through traffic. Record sums have been spent over recent years on roads in the region, especially the A47, the A11 and the A140. I pay tribute here to the Secretary of State who, long before he was Secretary of State for Transport, as the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South, made valiant efforts which, over the years, have been recognised in new road schemes to promote the interests of transport in East Anglia. Now, of course, he cannot say that himself, but I can and I do.

Some £71 million has been spent in Cambridgeshire alone in recent years. On the A47 in Cambridgeshire, we have seen since 1990 the completion of a number of bypasses and diversions. Further east on the A47, the Norwich southern bypass, the Narborough bypass and the East Dereham to North Tuddenham improvement have also been completed.

The purpose of the review which, I know, has upset my hon. Friends and which was the most wide ranging for many years was to place the road programme on a much more efficient and properly managed basis. I have had representations from hon. Members on both sides who have, over the years, been led to believe that their bypass was just around the corner.

It is quite clear that the prioritisation that we have undertaken has put far more certainty and far more focus into the roads programme. I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friends in this instance, but it is a rolling programme and as priority 1 schemes are completed, so priority 2 schemes move up. Then, of course, no doubt, the longer-term schemes have the opportunity of moving into the active programme.

One of the virtues of adopting that approach is that we have been able to avoid some £100 million a year of premature expenditure on scheme preparation and design. That is the cost of a goodly number of bypasses and it will be much better spent on construction. So we shall be able to build more schemes sooner and concentrate efforts on the most urgently needed bypass and motorway-widening schemes. In the process, we have been able to identify some schemes, which are no longer considered acceptable on environmental grounds, or which are not going to be needed for the foreseeable future and they have quite rightly been removed from the programme.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East will appreciate that it was inevitable that such a comprehensive review of the national roads programme would have implications for A47 schemes in both Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. We will be pressing ahead with our original proposals for dualling the road from Norwich to Great Yarmouth. We concluded that the initial strategy west of Norwich should be to concentrate on relieving local communities of through traffic.

I am glad that we were able to include the Thorney bypass in the revised programme, although we were unable to justify making the section of the A47 between Peterborough and the west of Thorney dual carriageway for the time being. Similarly, we have looked very carefully at the road east of Thorney to Guyhim. We concluded that there was no pressing need for upgrading that section and it has been withdrawn from the programme. However, proposals for improving the section from Guyhim to Wisbech, together with improvement of the A1101 junction on the Wisbech bypass, remain in the programme. The Thorney bypass was always going to be subject to resources being available and to our review of the roads programme.

In the meantime, but not as a substitute for the bypass, traffic-calming measures for Thorney were presented to the public in November. The Highways Agency expects to announce the results of that consultation exercise by the end of the next month. Harsh decisions about funding may have to be made in some cases all over the country. Of course, we are subject to resources being available nationally. I am certain that the decisions which have been made in the review of the roads programme are the right ones.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve midnight.