HC Deb 16 October 1996 vol 282 cc793-802 1.29 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn)

I begin by telling the House of the deep sense of anger and betrayal felt by my constituents at the Welsh Office's announcement on 10 July 1996 about the A5-A55 improvements in Anglesey that private funding was being sought for the project and that the starting date was to be put back 18 months at least.

We are angry that the announcement was made in a reply to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). This is the first time that any announcement on the A5 has been made in that way without consultation or prior notice. We feel betrayed by the content of the statement. Three "Roads in Wales" publications, a departmental report, a reply to a Select Committee report, a budget statement, ministerial statements and countless letters, up to 24 May this year, had made it clear that the Welsh Office regarded the improvements as a high priority to be paid for from public funds.

Those feelings are shared across the island of Anglesey—by the local authority, community councils, businesses and all who believe that the road improvements are crucial for the economic future of our communities. The anger and betrayal are felt most deeply by those who live on the route of the current A5. The residents of Caerwen, Gwalchmai, Bryngwran, Caergeiliog, Valley and Holyhead have to put up day after day and night after night with movements of traffic such a scale that their lives are becoming intolerable. According to a local authority report, the nuisance they suffer relates to noise, vibration, poor air quality, severance by traffic, road safety problems and visual intrusion. In many cases, they also suffer from structural damage to their properties.

The road safety aspect is significant. In 1988, Gwynedd county council—the then highway authority—published an analysis of accidents on the A5. It found a concentration of accidents in the five villages on the route, and particularly along London road in Holyhead. Indeed, the A5 through Holyhead—one and a quarter miles of the 18-mile section in Anglesey—accounted for one fifth of all injury accidents. It is estimated that completing the road would reduce accidents by 70 per cent.

Then there are the economic arguments. The current situation, with long tailbacks at peak periods and heavy traffic during most of the day, is causing havoc for businesses that rely on good transport facilities. Successful businesses cannot tolerate such long delays on the major road artery serving the island. They all speak of the need to start the road programme as quickly as possible. I shall quote later in my speech from some of the letters that I have received. I have already received letters from more than half the community councils on the island, as well as more than 50 letters from businesses and organisations. I know that there are more to come.

Let me try to put the scale of the traffic into perspective. The second road crossing on to the island and the dual carriageway bypassing Llanfairpwll were completed in the early 1980s. In 1981, 22,465 freight units were going by road to Holyhead and a total of 123,764 cars and coaches. In 1995, the totals were 69,697 freight units and 408,474 cars and coaches—increases of 210 per cent. and 230 per cent. respectively. Those staggering figures do not take into account the increase in local traffic, the impact of the HSS vessel introduced by Stena this year or the new Irish Ferries super-ferry, said to be the largest in north-west Europe, which is due to come into service in Holyhead in 1997.

Let me recap on the story to date. The first significant development occurred on 13 April 1988, when I led a local authority delegation to the Welsh Office and met the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). After we had pressed our case, he declared that the Welsh Office had decided to dual the section from Llanfairpwll to Turnpike Nant.

Naturally, the delegation was pleased with the announcement as far as it went. I pressed the Minister not to close his mind to completing the dualling of the road all the way to Holyhead. I asked him to receive further evidence, and he readily agreed. Shortly afterwards, I supplied him with a memorandum setting out the case to deal with the whole section. I have re-read that memorandum in preparation for today's debate. The figures that I quoted on the increase in traffic to Holyhead proved remarkably accurate.

The Minister's announcement about dualling part of the section was confirmed in "Roads in Wales, Progress and Plans for the 1990s", published in 1989, which stated that the section to Turnpike Nant was included in the road building programme. It also said: The case for upgrading the remainder of the road across Anglesey is being considered". The work was scheduled to commence not before 1994–95 and we were told informally that it could well start during that financial year.

We knew that our campaign to dual the whole road to Holyhead had been successful when the document entitled "The A55: The Road of Opportunity" was published late in 1989. There was a palpable sense of relief on the island that the case for the completion of the whole road to Holyhead had been won.

Our efforts were then directed to securing a timetable for the work. No indication came until the publication of the "Roads in Wales" 1992 supplement. It specified that stage 1, from Llanfairpwll to Turnpike Nant, was expected to start between April 1995 and March 1988. Stage 2, from Turnpike Nant to west of Bryngwran, was expected to start within the same period. Stage 3, from west of Bryngwran to Ty Mawr Holyhead, was expected to start after March 1998. The Holyhead relief road was expected to start before April 1995. None of those works has yet been started.

In its response to the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in March 1992, the Welsh Office said: The specific objectives of completing the M4 and dualling the A55 will be completed by the mid 1990s". We are now coming towards the end of the 1990s.

The next step was the publication of "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review", published in July of that year. The document contained no firm timetable, but it made several key statements on Government policy. A number of road schemes were deferred or taken out of the programme, while others were given priority status. The document said: High priority is attached to extending the A55 across Anglesey to Holyhead. This road will be designated the A55. It is planned to publish draft orders for the Holyhead relief road"— which was by then late— and the stage from Llanfairpwllgwyngyll to Nant Turnpike during 1994". The report confirmed that the road was to be built in four sections, as outlined in 1992. However, that was to change. The scheme was later reduced from four sections to two.

The people of Anglesey were still concerned by the lack of a firm timetable for the building of the road. We had seen the dates slip, with promises of starts in 1994–95 and in 1996 failing to materialise. The first sign of a proper programme came in a letter sent by the then Secretary of State dated 15 May 1995. In view of its importance to the debate, I want to quote the relevant paragraph in full. He said: I can assure you that I attach high priority to extending the A55 dual carriageway across Anglesey. This is reflected in the plans I announced on 9 March in the 'Departmental Report 1995—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98' (Cm 2815). A copy of the Major Scheme Forward Trunk Road Programme is enclosed for your information. You will see from this that two schemes—A55 Llanfair PG-west of Bryngwran and A55 west of Bryngwran-Holyhead—costing over £120 million are included in the highest programmed category, i.e. planned to start before April 1998. I am afraid that it is not possible to give a more precise start of work date at this stage. The letter also confirmed the road's strategic importance in European terms.

Given those assurances, the people of Anglesey felt that further pressure should be applied to bring the starting date forward. At least we knew that the Treasury had earmarked funds for the project, which was clearly shown as part of the Government's expenditure plans.

A meeting was held on 31 October 1995 with the current Minister with responsibility for transport in Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), at which he received a deputation, which I again led. We pressed him hard on the dates and we came away with the view that the first section could be started in the financial year 1996–97, and the second section would follow 12 months later. The 1995 public expenditure statement confirmed our view. On 13 December 1995, the Secretary of State said: the A55 improvements across Anglesey are important, and I plan to start the first stage of those improvements next year."—[Official Report. 13 December 1995: Vol. 268, c. 1004.] Subsequently, he explained that next year meant the next financial year, ending 31 March 1997. I know that the Welsh Office has said to the local authority that there is reference in the statement to the use of private finance. Let me make it perfectly clear that that is a misleading statement, because that refers to other projects and not to the A55. The reference to the A55 in that document cites that public funds would be used.

The Under-Secretary wrote to a number of people to confirm the timetable. He wrote to Ynys Môn county council on 24 May and said: work on the new road is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1997, demonstrating the commitment to the extension of the A55 across Anglesey. The local community had worked hard to secure those commitments. We were now being assured by the Welsh Office that the building of the road was a priority; that work on the first section would start in spring 1997; that work on the second section would start in the following year; and that public funds would be used. Little wonder then that the announcement made on 10 July caused such anger and outrage. It came only eight weeks after the Minister's final letter confirming the previous plans. It was made near the end of the summer session. It was made without consultation with the highway authority and on the day when the LG announcement was made. The Government were no doubt hoping to bury the bad news with the good—perhaps the link between the two is closer than we might imagine.

That announcement marked the first time that I was not given any warning about an announcement concerning the A5 in Anglesey. On previous occasions, I was always given at least a couple of days' prior warning, and rightly so, because it is a major issue in my constituency. Why choose to make the announcement in an answer to a question from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan? What possible interest could he have in the A5 in Anglesey?

The sense of anger and betrayal to which I referred now has to be channelled into a campaign to demand that the Welsh Office keeps its promise to the people of Anglesey. I have received an overwhelming response to my request for support, and I should like to quote from some of the letters I have received. Beaumaris town council's letter is typical of many. It states:

  • "Dear Mr. Jones
  • A5-A55 improvement
Thank you for your letter of the 13 September which I have read to my council. As a consequence I am asked to reply, and say my council is 100 per cent. behind your cause and wishes you well in your efforts to improve the situation on Anglesey. A representative of Tref Alaw community council wrote: The new road is already years behind schedule, without mentioning the further delay. Businesses have been equally forthright. A representative of Anglesey Aluminium has written: The poor capacity of the existing A5 has been a deterrent to several aluminium use intensive businesses from locating near the smelter. Many businesses have written to say that the condition of the A5 is a disincentive to inward investors, and some report that it is difficult to find suppliers who will deliver to the island. Even more alarming is the news that some might relocate unless the road programme moves ahead quickly. One business man wrote To bring the road to our doorstep then stop is an insult. The two companies that operate ferry services from Holyhead have been strong in their condemnation of the Welsh Office decision. Stena's ship and port manager said: Stena Line has invested £46 million in redeveloping the Port of Holyhead … Both companies have committed large new ferries … There is no doubt that we are fast approaching the stage where the growth in business needed to justify the massive investments by the ferry companies and port authority is being stifled by the inadequate access routes. The managing director of Irish Ferries, Gerry Hickey, wrote: The arrival of the new superferry in May 1995 has dramatically increased the traffic through the port, and this has been summarised on the accompanying table, with projections for 1997. Since announcing plans regarding investment in this route in 1993, Irish Ferries has kept all its promises, and to date we have had little support from the Welsh Office". He also sounds a warning that unless we get our act together, the port of Liverpool with its excellent motorway connections threatens to take business away from Holyhead.

The Under-Secretary has had a flavour of the anger, betrayal and outrage felt by the people of Anglesey as a result of the Welsh Office announcement. He is aware that the current campaign is designed to secure a change of mind. The least I expect from him today is to tell me that the Welsh Office will review its decision and will meet a delegation consisting of the people of Anglesey to present our case; otherwise its decision is just another one of those broken promises that have littered the Government's path since 1992.

1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans)

As the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) has pointed out, the Government announced their commitment to dual the A5 trunk road across Anglesey in the document published in December 1989, "The A55: The Road of Opportunity". The importance that the Government place on improving the route across the island has been reiterated on many occasions since then, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out. We announced our intention to redesignate the proposed road as the A55 in "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review" to give continuity with the A55 dual carriageway on the mainland. Since then, as we have heard, work has progressed on the design and the statutory procedures, not all of which have yet been concluded, which are necessary to bring a scheme to the point where tenders for main works contracts can be invited. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are statutory inquiry proceedings still outstanding in relation to part of the scheme.

On 13 December 1995, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave details to the House of the Department's spending plans for Wales for 1996–97. He reiterated the importance of the A55 improvements across Anglesey, on which preparation work was continuing, and, as we have heard, continues, and referred to his wish to develop a number of major road schemes in partnership with the private sector.

On 10 July, the Under-Secretary with responsibility for roads in Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), confirmed that funding was to be sought for three major road schemes in Wales: the M4 relief road south of Newport, the A465 improvement between Abergavenny and Hirwaun and the A55 dual carriageway across Anglesey between Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and Holyhead. My hon. Friend is unable to respond to the hon. Gentleman today because he is on a trade mission to south-east Asia. On 10 July. he also announced the intention to take each of those projects forward under the private finance initiative as design, build, finance and operate—DBFO—schemes.

My hon. Friend again emphasised the importance of the planned A55 dual carriageway proposals, and I want to reiterate his comments. I accept many of the points that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn has made about the importance of the work. My hon. Friend said that, subject to satisfactory completion of legal procedures, work on the scheme was expected to begin in autumn 1998, with the road being completed some three years later. It deserves to be emphasised that that is about the same time span as would have been involved if construction were undertaken by conventional means.

The Government place great importance on design, build, finance and operate contracts for major trunk road improvements, which form a significant part of our PFI. Just a few days ago, colleagues in England were able to announce plans for major improvements to the M40 between London and Oxford. I am pleased to note that a Welsh company, Hyder, was part of the successful consortium that was awarded that contract. I know of the widespread interest in those projects.

There are a number of misconceptions about the contracts. Let me make it clear at the outset that there is no question of tolling booths being placed at strategic intervals across Anglesey, as has been claimed. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has never claimed that, but it has been claimed in some quarters. The system is that the contractor designs the new road, funds its construction, and manages and maintains the road—together with any existing roads that form part of the contract—for a certain period, usually 30 years. In return, the Government pay shadow tolls using a formula based on the number of vehicles using the road and on lane availability. The DBFO contractor, by the nature of the contract, has a long-term interest in the road, which gives a greater guarantee that the initial construction standard will be maintained.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the misunderstandings that have given a number of community councils on Anglesey, and Anglesey county council, cause for concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have received a number of requests for meetings to discuss the July announcement on funding the scheme and to express concern about the Department's alleged lack of commitment to the scheme proceeding within the announced time scale.

The July announcement was apparently received with some surprise locally. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a mood of anger and betrayal. Why that should be so is not clear. Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement to the House last December, all public statements have reiterated the point that the Secretary of State is considering delivering a number of major road programmes in Wales through the private finance initiative.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones

Does the Minister accept that the original plan was to build a road using the public finance that had been allocated? Does he also accept that on previous occasions I was given advance warning of each step?

Mr. Evans

I am unable to comment on the hon. Gentleman's last point: I am sure that he will accept that. In the interests of road building and capital projects in Wales, we must surely explore the opportunities for involving the private finance initiative. If major capital works can be progressed on that basis, we are likely to have greater capital expenditure across the Principality than would otherwise be the case. The core of the hon. Gentleman's observations today was that the delivery of the scheme would be delayed. The time scale referred to would allow the scheme to be delivered within the initial time scale proposed. I accept his point that the preliminary start date will not be the same, but the point of delivery will be. It is the core date that is important.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met members of the North Wales Economic Forum on 4 September at Wrexham. It was stressed at that meeting that members of the forum placed great emphasis on the Welsh Office adhering to the timetable for extending the A55 across Anglesey, as the overriding need was to ensure that north Wales had a robust transport infrastructure, with adequate links to the country's motorway network. My right hon. Friend recognised the importance of the A55 route to north Wales, and the need to ensure that the scheme was not delayed. He acknowledged that there might be some initial delay in the start of construction, especially while the Bryngwran-Holyhead section was subject to statutory procedures. The completion of the whole length of the dual carriageway was expected to be within the planned timetable, as I outlined.

I also emphasise that there will be no short cuts, literal or metaphorical, as a result of taking this scheme forward under PFI. All the necessary statutory procedures have to be undertaken, and orders made. Any commitments given in correspondence and at the public local inquiry will be included as part of the PFI contract. The adoption of the PFI approach involves the form and method of procurement, rather than the date when the scheme is likely to be delivered. The statutory procedures are not affected. The highways orders for the section between Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and Bryngwran were made earlier this year following a public inquiry into the proposals—the second public inquiry for the Bryngwran to Holyhead section is expected to be held in early 1997—and every opportunity will be given, in the normal way, for authorities or individuals to register their support for the scheme, or objections to any aspect of it.

The hon. Gentleman referred in great detail to the increase in traffic growth on the island. That increase, together with the pressures that it brings, is one of the main reasons why the Government have attached high priority to extending the dualling of the A55 across Anglesey. The traffic need for the new improvement is well documented in the Welsh Office's evidence to the public inquiry into the section between Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and Bryngwran, and recorded by the inspector in his report. A similar case will be put to the public inquiry, to be held early in the new year, into the remaining section between Bryngwran and Holyhead, at which the hon. Gentleman, the Ynys Môn county council and any other interested parties will have the opportunity of expressing their strong support for the scheme, as the hon. Gentleman has consistently done—support that he has outlined to the House again today.

The proposed dual carriageway, when it is built, will have adequate capacity to cater for the projected traffic growth on the island, including any that may result from increases in ferry capacity. The programme of the scheme is aimed at completing the whole length of the improvement across the island in the shortest possible time. The projection that has been made of the time from the start of the scheme to the date on which it is expected to be delivered will be shown to be correct.

On matters of detail concerning the construction of the project, I confirm that it is intended that the road will be built and will be completed as one length between Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and Holyhead. The Department is willing, in principle, to include an additional interchange—which was requested by the Anglesey county council—within the DBFO contract, subject to certain conditions of which the county council was previously advised. Having studied the correspondence, I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the county council's concern in that regard and of the conditions that were previously outlined by the Welsh Office.

The Welsh Office also pointed out to the county council that it is prepared to adopt the same approach in respect of possible road links at the Caerwen and Ty Mawr junctions, and that those and other issues would have to be further discussed with officials of the Department's highways directorate. Highways directorate officials in the Welsh Office will continue to liaise with local authority officials to keep them abreast of developments in the scheme.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the request for a meeting with a delegation. I must make it clear to him that the Welsh Office is of the view that the scheme has been properly introduced under the PFI. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hosted a reception for a number of contractors and others who may be involved in bidding for PFI schemes in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am aware of the substantial interest, especially in relation to major road schemes of this sort. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's request is based on the premise that the Secretary of State will be deflected from proceeding with the matter under a PFI scheme, no useful purpose will be served by such a meeting.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will gather from my observations that the highways directorate staff, and even Ministers, are willing to engage in a dialogue about how the scheme should be taken forward. That is the dialogue that we seek, and there would be no point in leaving this debate in the belief that there is anything to be gained by returning to a conventional publicly funded route and not proceeding on the basis of the announcement made in July.

Mr. Jones

It is important for the Minister to understand the context of the request for a meeting. I understand his point, but it is important for the Welsh Office to meet a delegation to discuss the matters that he has said are vital. We need to know what will happen.

Mr. Evans

The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other long enough for him to know that I am never reluctant to meet hon. Members or to receive delegations. However, there is no purpose in holding such a meeting on the premise that the Government will be deflected from their intentions, given in the announcement, about how the scheme should be taken forward. That announcement was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is now taking the matter forward with the Welsh Office. If the meeting is to be held within that context, it is that and not a lack of courtesy on the part of the Welsh Office that leads my right hon. and hon. Friends to say that no purpose would be served by it at this point. If there are other matters that the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue—

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.