§ Mr. David Porter (Waveney)I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the matter of the A 12 trunk road in Waveney and to express some of my constituents' fears about the consequences of leaving it as it is, without development and without significant improvement.
When the roads programme was cut in the previous Budget, it was understood that all road schemes had to be reconsidered; no one argues against that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads and the Department of Transport can only do what they can with the money that the Treasury gives them. It is also now unfashionable in some quarters to build roads.
I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will understand the sense of betrayal and desertion that I feel on behalf of my constituents as a result of the fact that the commitment in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" to dual the A12 from London to Great Yarmouth by 1999 has been abandoned in the re-ordering of priorities. Such schemes are abandoned without hope when they are wiped out for ever instead of being put back. Putting back is not satisfactory, but expectation and community feeling are kept alive. Axing completely simply demoralises individuals, businesses and communities that trusted in that original hope.
I shall concentrate on two parts of the A12. The first is the A12 through Wrentham, an attractive village whose case for a bypass was established and settled many years ago, when the Department of Transport kept the A12 north of Ipswich as a trunk road and took over the Wrentham bypass scheme from Suffolk county council. On 27 November last, a child, Grace Wright, was almost killed crossing the A12 after school at 4.30 in the afternoon. By a miracle and as a result of intensive care in Addenbrooke's hospital, she is now recovering. There may be some traffic-calming measures, and there may be traffic controls and further speed restrictions, but what does it take to happen—how many lives will be put at risk—before a bypass, which was accepted when traffic volumes were lower than they are now, is built on road safety, environmental and quality of life grounds?
Surely when the Kessingland bypass was built, the Wrentham bypass should have been added to it. Having delayed the scheme with inquiries and arguments over routes, surely the most sensitive decision would have been to keep it in the active programme. Whatever the arguments about the stretch through Lowestoft, which I shall come to next, surely Wrentham was a stand-alone case with a watertight justification. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reinstate the scheme to a higher priority as so much money has already been spent on its preparation.
In Lowestoft, to the north of Wrentham, there is an even worse case. The Government have simply wiped out the spine road from Kessingland to Pleasurewood, roads on both sides of the river and the bridge that crosses Lake Lothing. The campaign for a third crossing at Lake Lothing began at the end of the first world war in 1918 and some of the approach corridors have been preserved since the mid-1960s. The two existing crossings, the crossing at Mutfordlock in Oulton Broad and the bascule bridge in Lowestoft harbour, have been variously replaced over the years. The Mutfordlock crossing was rebuilt most recently, but it is not a trunk road.
715 The existing bascule bridge is the only main link for the two halves of Lowestoft and beyond in either direction. To the north, there is Great Yarmouth where hundreds of my constituents travel to work. To the south, there are Ipswich, London and the channel tunnel. The bridge also provides a link to the A14 east-west link. That bridge is thus central and critical.
The bascule bridge is coming towards the end of its life. The previous bridge failed and for weeks, the town was cut in half. Business, cultural and social life almost died. The replacement was built in 1972 with an expected life span of 30 years, so we are only six years from its expected end, with no replacement in hand. Last summer, the bridge failed during a peak bank holiday period. The tailbacks were horrendous and life was literally rendered intolerable for thousands of people. I keep asking what plans the Government have in the event of permanent failure of that bridge. The answer seems to be that they have none. I ask again today what my hon. Friend will do if the bridge fails beyond repair.
In February 1991, I corresponded with Christopher Chope, who was then Minister for Roads and Traffic, about failures of the bridge in November 1990 and January 1991—failures of the same chaotic magnitude as last summer's. He replied:
In November 1990 my Department announced the preferred route for the Al2 Lowestoft Relief Road which incorporates a new crossing in the vicinity of the North Quay. Subject to completion of statutory procedures and the availability of funds construction could start in 1994 and would take about two year… I hope that we can avoid further failures of this kind but recognise that the long-term solution is the construction of a new harbour crossing.Nothing has changed since then except that the traffic volume, the pollution and the inconvenience have got worse. The need is still there.Even when the bridge is working properly, it causes problems. It opens to shipping, on average, 12 times a day. Each opening takes three to four minutes although if there is more than one vessel to go through, openings can take 10 minutes or more. Average tailbacks of traffic at bridge openings are three quarters of a mile in both directions. The hundreds of stationary vehicles often keep their engines running throughout.
Of course the bridge openings are vital to the economic well-being of the port and no one suggests that the bridge should not be opened. The area is trying to encourage tourists and there is a growing Dutch visitor element. Those Dutch visitors, who are, in effect, our competitors in Europe, are astonished that a town the size of Lowestoft, with 65,000 people, has to hold its breath and hope that the bridge, having opened, will close again to allow the vehicles across. In Holland, there is no question of bridges not working or not being replaced because they are a priority in keeping commerce going.
What other town of Lowestoft's size and importance—it is the second largest in Suffolk—has to have a trunk road going through its heart while being 80 miles from the nearest point of the motorway network? In the north of the town, the A 1 2 is reduced to a single lane in several places although it carries more than 33,000 vehicles a day. In the south, where London road south runs through the Kirkley area, exhaust fumes were monitored last summer, with ghastly findings. The incidence of asthma around that part of the Al2 is twice the frequency for Lowestoft in 716 general, which is itself higher than the national average. Drawing trunk traffic flow from those areas into the corridors that have been preserved is the only solution.
If there is any doubt, we need look no further than the circular, sent out every year by the Department of Transport, which advises local authorities on how to prepare their transport policies and programmes. The local authorities—I quote from instruction 25—are told:
Authorities should pay particular attention to air quality in preparing transport plans especially through consideration of measures to reduce traffic levels in sensitive areas such as town centres.What is good enough advice for local authorities should be good enough advice for the Department of Transport.What of the corridors, the houses and the land that have been blighted and bought with taxpayers' money? Whole housing developments and minor roads have been built over the years which leave the Al2 spine road corridors. Are the corridors to be allowed to go to development—ribbon and odd-corner development—just because the spine road has been arbitrarily axed?
I was born and brought up in Lowestoft. For all my life—certainly all my political life—Lowestoft's traffic problems have been beyond any joke. There is an all-party consensus on the need for a bridge. There is agreement from industry and business, from the elderly and from young families that the third crossing is the solution. We call it the third crossing; the Department of Transport calls it the second crossing, implying that the bascule bridge will eventually go and that the new bridge will be built west of the inner harbour. Such joke as there was, was that the second coming would occur before the third crossing. As things stand now, that may well be so.
Those who did not want the new bridge are happy now. Some argued that the spine road was not a panacea and would encourage yet more vehicular traffic. There are those—I am certainly among them—who say, "If we cannot have a £80 million bridge up river, what can we have? What do we as a community want from our road layout which will improve the quality of our lives and our economic prospects?"
While we have been given a chance to rethink, there is a fear that nothing at all will be done to help Lowestoft solve its economic problems, which are being experienced deeply by many of my constituents. In recent years, Lowestoft has suffered a decline in its traditional industries, and jobs lost in food-related industries, shipbuilding and fishing have put local unemployment at about 11 per cent.
The existing A12 links are at best sub-standard and at worst wholly inadequate, given the economic pressures on the area. The area failed to get assisted area status, although nearby Great Yarmouth did. If the decision had been made a few weeks later, unemployment in Lowestoft would have been high enough to allow us to get assisted area status also. Lowestoft has been designated an EU objective 5b area, but so far we have not received approval for any big job creation ideas. That approval must come from the Government via the Government office for the eastern region, which includes my hon. Friend the Minister's Department.
Eighteen months ago, European Commission official Alfonso Gonzalez Finat visited Lowestoft and was shown the potential of the port. He pointed out that the road links create an unfair disadvantage for a port with such 717 excellent European sea links. In 1980, a British Road Federation report criticised the state of all road links to ports, and singled out Lowestoft. Since then, nothing has been done except for one small piece of work—the eastern relief road from the port. Despite that, a single carriageway trunk road still goes through the heart of the town. The relief road funnels the traffic instead of moving it. When the bridge is open, the eastern relief road is no more than an expensive temporary car park.
The promise of road improvements has helped investment in Lowestoft to some degree, but now that the hope following the 1989 promise has been removed, we fear relocations and closures. There is a feeling in East Anglia that the central corridor of Great Britain from the north through the middle of England and London to the channel tunnel is being developed. That is fair enough, and I will not argue with that. But as a consequence, the furthest edge of East Anglia is being sidelined. I hope that that is not being done deliberately, but that appears to be the case.
People often say to me that the charm of an isolated area such as north Suffolk is what brings in the tourists, and that is true. The Broads and the North sea are great natural assets that attract visitors, while the local bathing beaches are the finest in England. North Suffolk is one of the most appealing parts of the country. There are people who visit the area regularly for many years, and some end up retiring there. But a thriving tourist industry based on water, entertainment, history and indigenous charm must be accessible. There must be a thriving local economy, and not one that is simply choked by traffic.
We were awarded objective 5b status to ameliorate the deficiency in our communications and infrastructure that adversely affects local businesses and communities and which erects barriers preventing sustainable development. The A12 at Waveney is surely a classic candidate for priority treatment under that criterion.
Where do we go from here? What is to happen to the Wrentham bypass, the spine road and the bridge? What schemes is the Department of Transport now looking at to ease Lowestoft's traffic problems? What will happen when—not if—the bascule bridge fails for good? What plans has the Department made in the event of the bridge failing for a few days, weeks or months? Will a replacement be provided for that crossing?
Why can we not build a bridge at the proposed crossing place, but under the private finance initiative? There is surely scope there for such a development. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at that proposal urgently? At the end of last year, the Government were considering dividing the road network into 27 regions, controlled by a corporation set up to extend, run and maintain the road system. Drivers would have to pay companies by electronic metering, zone permits or a fuel levy to use the roads, in return for the scrapping of the £140 vehicle excise duty. That would mean that all of the money raised for roads would be spent on roads. Is that the answer for the A 12 and for other roads? If not, what is the answer? What can I take back to my constituents, who have been deeply affected by the change in the economic base in the past decade? With their great hopes of investment in the area's infrastructure from taxpayers wiped out—at least for now—what can I take back to my constituents?
§ The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on securing the debate. I know from many recent discussions with my hon. Friend of his concern at the lack of progress on work on the A12 in Waveney, and the Kessingland to Pleasurewood improvement and bridge in particular.
A combination of sharply rising road construction costs and reduced funds in the public expenditure settlement necessitated a review of the trunk road programme, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged. As part of the announcements at the time of the Budget in November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the "Managing the Trunk Road Programme" review, which had looked at the whole national programme. The revised programme represents a practical assessment of what can realistically be achieved within the resources likely to be available.
We have targeted the new programme at key routes, while seeking to make the best possible use of the network. The new programme includes a significant number of bypasses, but many very desirable and strongly supported schemes have had to be deferred or withdrawn altogether. Within East Anglia, our main priorities are the A14 and the M11-A11. It was recognised in the review that the A12 and A140 between Ipswich, Lowestoft and Norwich were of lower priority in national terms. I accept, however, that they may be very important locally.
We have withdrawn all schemes on the A140, but on the A12 north of Ipswich we have retained the following four schemes in the longer-term programme—Martlesham to Wickham Market, Wickham Market to Saxmundham, the Yoxford bypass and the Wrentham bypass, to which my hon. Friend referred. These have been retained in the longer-term programme primarily because of the environmental benefits they will bring.
In Waveney, three of the original schemes on the Al2 fall within the boundary of the district council. The bypass for Blythburgh was withdrawn from the programme because of its serious effect on the local environment. It would have passed through an area of outstanding natural beauty, and close to a Ramsar site and a site of special scientific interest.
The scheme that combined the Kessingland to Pakefield improvements and the Lowestoft relief road—and, as my hon. Friend has explained, would have included a third crossing of Lake Lothing—has been withdrawn. I know that there is strong local support for it, and I sympathise with the view which my hon. Friend has expressed today that the economic development of Lowestoft is being constrained by poor links to the national road network and congestion in the town. The scheme would be very expensive, however, and the bridge is a particularly costly element within it. The scheme would cater mainly for local traffic.
The decision to withdraw the scheme was a difficult one in the light of local needs. My hon. Friend and I have previously discussed arguments advanced by local authorities—he advanced these arguments again today—that the bridge element of the scheme could be considered a candidate for a design, build, finance and operate project. But although the private sector would fund the work within a DBFO contract, an arrangement based on shadow tolling would still place a burden on the 719 Department's public expenditure budget. Faced with tight limits on expenditure for highways infrastructure, a third harbour crossing for Lowestoft could not be regarded as a high priority for investment in national terms. Any further developments of DBFOs will be targeted towards schemes that are of sufficient national importance to be included within the main road programme.
My hon. Friend mentioned his concerns about the bridge itself. I hope that I can assure him that a structural assessment and detailed inspection of the bridge completed recently has shown that it is in generally good condition. However, it is likely that some further inspections and testing will take place later this year, together with other minor maintenance works.
The lifting bridge is operated by Associated British Ports, which also oversees the maintenance of the mechanical and electrical systems on behalf of the Highways Agency. The structure of the bridge itself is maintained by the county council as agents of the Highways Agency. A detailed programme of routine maintenance is managed by ABP, which continues throughout the year. This involves day-to-day servicing of the operating systems, as well as a replacement and refurbishment of major components on a regular basis.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that the bridge is in generally sound condition and should continue to operate satisfactorily for many more years. I acknowledge his point that we must look far enough ahead to take account of what might be required in terms of substantial refurbishment or, perhaps, replacement of the bridge.
We consulted the public on the proposed Wrentham bypass in the summer of 1993. I realise how frustrating a further delay in that scheme must be, particularly for those who live alongside the existing trunk road. As I explained earlier, the A12 is not one of the nation's most important routes, and we have not yet been able to find a place for the bypass in the main programme. The scheme has not been abandoned but placed in the longer-term category, which means that we shall take it forward as we make progress with the main programme.
I cannot give any promises now as to when the scheme might be brought into the main programme because it will depend on our progress and resources during the next few years. In the meantime, work on the scheme will be suspended. In the near future we shall make an announcement locally about how matters rest following the 1993 consultation.
Where we have withdrawn major schemes or we are unable to make rapid progress with them in the foreseeable future, as a matter of course we shall consider whether more limited improvements to the existing roads can be implemented to improve safety and ease congestion.
Recent improvements to the A12 include work on the Lowestoft eastern relief road, which forms part of the one-way trunk road system north of the harbour, and was completed in 1994. That scheme was funded by the Department of Transport using a 100 per cent. grant under section 272 of the Highways Act 1980 and incorporated into the network on completion.
The new road is expected to boost the local economy by improving access to the town's industrial areas and docks. In addition, the scheme has removed some 7,500 vehicles a day from Lowestoft's Triangle market shopping 720 area. The local environment also benefits from reduced congestion and lower vehicle emissions—a point which my hon. Friend stressed.
The Department of Transport has carried out a programme of local improvements along the A12 corridor. Those include signing, road markings, junction modifications and improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.
A study has been carried out on the existing A12 corridor through Lowestoft, and a package of improvements has been identified, which includes changes to the one-way system, the introduction of a bus lane, changes to signal controls, junction improvements, signing, road markings, and waiting and loading restrictions. The package is designed to ease congestion and improve safety, and individual elements can be implemented to suit the level of any future funding allocation. Preliminary consultations have been carried out in order to draw up the proposals, but a more detailed consultation exercise will be necessary prior to implementation.
North of Lowestoft, a scheme is being prepared for the installation of central reserve safety fencing on the one and three quarter-mile length of dual carriageway north of Lowestoft. That will complete the installation programme for the county and assist in the overall installation target for the whole country by the end of 1996.
At Kessingland bypass southern roundabout, a scheme has been prepared to improve the existing layout in order to reduce the high number of overrun accidents. Contract documents have been approved, and the scheme is ready to go out to tender when funds become available.
A scheme has been prepared to install a right-turn lane at the A12 Benacre junction in order to reduce turning accidents. Contract documents have been prepared, and negotiations for land acquisition are under way. When that has been completed, the scheme will be ready to go out to tender when we can make funds available.
A scheme is also being prepared to improve the Wangford junction in order to reduce accidents. There is also a scheme to close one leg of the Wangford junction crossroads, where there is poor visibility, in order to reduce accidents.
A study has been carried out into the provision and standard of laybys on the A12, which has identified a further package of improvements along the route. It is intended that a rolling programme of improvements should be drawn up to suit the available funds.
I mentioned an investigation to identify improved facilities for cyclists along the route, not that we have forgotten the needs of pedestrians as well. A further scheme to reduce accidents along the A12 seeks to improve the conspicuity of junctions and implement other local low-cost measures.
We must look further than the A12. The other major route serving Lowestoft is via the A143 and A146 from the A14 at Bury St. Edmunds. The Government have provided considerable grant support for the Norfolk and Suffolk county council schemes to upgrade that route. In the past two years alone, support has been given for the Scole-Stuston bypass, the Brockdish-Needham bypass and the Rickinghall-Bottesdale bypass, all of which are now open to traffic.
721 We also continue to maintain the existing routes, and we have completed three schemes this year within the Waveney district. We have undertaken resurfacing work at Kirkley Cliff, at a cost of £25,000, resurfacing and reconstruction work at Waveney road, at a cost of £98,000, and resurfacing at Denmark road, which has cost £30,000. We propose to undertake further maintenance next year, including the resurfacing at Battery Green road and resurfacing at Sparrows Nest, at a combined cost of £186,000. I hope that that shows our commitment to a realistic programme of improvements to the strategic routes serving Waveney on trunk and county primary roads.
I said at the beginning of my speech that it was vital that priorities were set within a realistic financial framework. We have done that in a responsible manner, concentrating our efforts on the key national routes.
In East Anglia, the most important road project in recent years was the A14, which was opened in 1994. It is a dual carriageway trunk road from the Ml-M6 junction to Felixstowe, and it is regarded as one of the key strategic routes for the region. We have six schemes for capacity and safety improvements in the programme for that route. As part of the Ireland-UK-Benelux road, it is one of the 14 Christophersen priority projects for the European Community and therefore eligible for some funding from the trans-European networks budget. The A14, as I mentioned earlier, serves the needs of Lowestoft via the link at Bury St. Edmunds.
Our next priority is the M11-A11 route from London to Norwich. That priority appears to be widely accepted in the region as the key route to Norwich and the coast. We are making great strides with the dualling of the A11 from south of Cambridge, with eight of the 12 schemes already opened—I opened one scheme only a month ago—and the Besthorpe-Wymondham scheme to open later this year. That will leave us with only three schemes, all of which are retained in the main programme.
The Roudham Heath-Attleborough improvement is ready to start when funds become available. It is our firm intention to complete the dualling of the A11 from the M11 to Norwich.
722 On our third priority, the A47, we have spent some £150 million in recent years, on the schemes in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, between the A1 at Peterborough and Great Yarmouth; including the Norwich southern bypass, which has considerably improved travel to the coastal towns of Great Yarmouth and, to some degree, Lowestoft. There are further A47 schemes in the main and longer-term programme, but I recognise that the long-cherished hope of many businesses and authorities for a complete dual carriageway route will not be forthcoming.
I know that my hon. Friend would like more by way of future intentions and improvements to the A12, but we have carried out a thorough review of the roads programme and put into the main programme a number of types of schemes which we think that we can deliver within the funding that we believe will be available over the next few years. We have identified for the longer-term programme schemes which we still believe will be needed at some time in the future, but which are not of sufficient priority to be taken forward immediately. It would not have been responsible of us not to recognise that, beyond those two elements of the programme, there are other schemes of which the possibility of being delivered is so far into the future that it would not be reasonable to continue to impose the blight which attaches to schemes in the programme, even if they are many years ahead.
To have kept schemes in the long-term programme which we know we have very little realistic opportunity to deliver would be to con people. I know that my hon. Friend would not want me—I know that he would never do it—to excite expectations which could not be realised among his constituents. I shall continue to reflect on what he has said, and to pay close attention to the bridge and the measures necessary to keep it available as a vital link on the A12 and within the town of Lowestoft, so that some of the problems which have been experienced in recent months will not be repeated.
§ It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.