§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
7.21 pm§ Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)I am extremely grateful that my topic has been selected for debate this evening. It means a great deal to the people of Waveney, which is, of course, Britain's easternmost constituency.
I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on her appointment.
One of the key elements of transport policy has come to be the concept of sustainability. Transport must comply with the requirements of a sustainable environment, yet it must, of course, also sustain an economy. As Labour's business manifesto rightly pledged, we must ensure that we provide the modern transport infrastructure that business needs, which allows business to be competitive. The transport links to Lowestoft and Waveney simply do not provide that at the moment.
If one were to draw a map of Britain based not on conventional linear distance but on travel time, my constituency and north-east East Anglia would lie at the end of a very long peninsula indeed.
Let us look at the roads. Most visitors to our district arrive late. I remember the President of the Board of Trade telephoning from a point on the Al2 between Colchester and Ipswich, having looked at the map distance, and saying, "We'll be there in half an hour." Unfortunately, the Al2 beyond Ipswich peters out into a single carriageway with slow bends, un-bypassed villages, and tractors.
The A47, linking us to the midlands, is much the same. Business men who turn off the Al and see the road sign "Norwich 120 miles"—Lowestoft is not mentioned, of course—and then soon become stuck behind two lorries following a tractor, with little chance to overtake, admit to having a sinking feeling. Some never come back. I believe that my hon. Friend will find that our area is further from the continuous dualled road network than any other part of England.
I shall now deal with rail transport. There are lines from Lowestoft to Ipswich—with another station in my constituency, at Beccles—and from Lowestoft to Norwich. However, the journey to Ipswich takes longer and is more expensive than by car. Therefore, apart from a few services at peak times, most trains are fairly empty, which is a great shame.
Railtrack has told me that it would be prepared to invest in a passing loop at Beccles, which would permit a more frequent service, but only if the train operator, Anglia Railways, will guarantee more income to provide Railtrack's rate of return. That seems to pass all the risk on to the operator and may explain why the Secretary of State has had to complain about Railtrack's level of investment. Even with a passing loop, the journey time would not be quicker. Massive investment in segregating the many crossings—of roads, lanes and farm tracks—would be necessary to allow safety speed limits to be raised.
The economic consequences of the failure to modernise transport links in line with much of the rest of the country have been severe for people in my constituency. 515 While we have lost many traditional industries, such as shipbuilding, canning factories, a coach works, and shoe making—it was announced today that the last vestiges of the shoemaking industry in Lowestoft will disappear, with the loss of 48 jobs—we have been unable to attract new firms and new inward investment.
New companies invariably prefer to locate close to a modern road network. Just compare the employment statistics within the same region, for Cambridge, Bury St. Edmunds and Ipswich on the A14 corridor, with the figures for Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. They tell a significant story. Unemployment is double the regional average in Lowestoft, and has been for many years. People in my constituency are fed up with being told that they are in the unemployment black spot of East Anglia.
The link between good road communications and economic success is well illustrated all over the world. I note the study by Cardiff business school on the impact of the A55 improvements in north Wales. It concluded:
There is no doubt that the impact of the A55 improvements have been both substantial and significant to the economy of North Wales.A manufacturer from the Isle of Anglesey said:Completion of the A55 improvements has eliminated for good the peripheral status of North Wales.I note that even BT, with all its new technology and new forms of communication, recently chose Brentwood as the location for a new base, because it is well served by modern roads.In every local survey of business in Waveney, poor transport links are seen as the biggest obstacle to economic success. I do not seek new roads, just a modernisation of existing trunk roads. Improvements to the A47 and A12 were cut out of the programme by the previous Government. People felt betrayed and neglected by that. Those schemes need to be reinstated.
I do not support unbridled road building. My response to widening the M25 and other such schemes is that if six lanes or four are not enough, one should diversify to a more balanced transport system, but let us have a level playing field, so that all parts of our country have a chance to share in economic prosperity and to cast off peripherality.
People in Waveney were delighted that in Labour's manifesto there was a clear commitment, which we have seen honoured today, to conduct
an overall strategic review of the roads programme against the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact".We are pleased to note that the first criterion mentioned was accessibility.There is certainly great potential in Lowestoft and Waveney for industrial and tourism development. There is plenty of cheap land. The labour force is hard-working and loyal, with low costs. It is a pleasant environment with room to breathe. Lowestoft is Britain's eastern cardinal point, with, officially, England's best beach, and an entrance to the Broads national park. Most important, it is Britain's easternmost port, pointing straight at Europe. Lowestoft is not the end of the line; it is on the way to Europe.
The keystone of the new Government's thinking on transport will be an integrated transport policy. I welcome that. Lowestoft has the ideal opportunity for an integrated transport policy. We have a combination of sea—with the 516 new European emphasis on short sea shipping—road and rail. The railway tracks in Lowestoft run right up to the port, parallel to the quayside. There are plenty of sidings. There is already an expanding container shipping company trading with Scandinavia, but it currently uses lorries to carry goods between Lowestoft and the north-west and the midlands.
Here lies the opportunity for a rail freight terminal, but it will require investment from Railtrack and Associated British Ports, and new momentum from a rail freight operator. There is the opportunity in the next three years of matched European objective 5b funding. I should like the Government's regional office to take a more proactive role in that area, and I hope that the new regional development agency will have that brief.
I mentioned the potential for an integrated policy in Lowestoft, with intermodal links between sea, rail and road. However, one major problem lies in the way, and the people of Waveney would say—in reference to the title of the debate—that it is the biggest transport problem of all. It is known locally as "the bridge". The Al2 passes through the entire length of Lowestoft, including the town centre. The town is cut in two by a river—although it is not really a river, but a long, deep inlet, which forms the inner harbour.
The Al2 crosses the waterway by means of a bascule bridge—a lift—up bridge—which has to be opened every time a ship uses the port on which our prosperity depends. The bridge is the only crossing point in town, as the next one is at Oulton Broad, almost two and a half miles inland. The traffic flow across the bridge is the second highest in Suffolk. When the bridge opens, the town is brought to a standstill, literally. The congestion thus formed takes a long time to clear, and in summer, when we attract tourists, there is frequent gridlock.
That situation is, I believe, unique and has to be seen to be believed. My hon. Friend the Minister recently witnessed the spectacle and saw a Chinese junk passing through. I hope that that is indelibly etched on her memory. She should visit Lowestoft in summer, when the situation is at its worst. Anyone who has not seen it may imagine London with half its bridges missing and the other half lifting up frequently. Frequently—and twice on bank holidays in recent years—the bridge breaks down. Not even a pedestrian, let alone the emergency services, can cross. The town is snapped in two.
Clearly, that presents an economic problem and affects the commercial activity of the town. It seems to make our drive for increased tourism self-defeating, and has distorted the development of the town. Many decades ago, one bridge was enough, but Lowestoft has grown. Like blown glass in an egg timer, the two sides of the town have expanded, but the constriction in the middle remains, becoming relatively worse.
That situation also presents an environmental problem. The air quality tests carried out in the enclosed Victorian streets that form the southern approach to the bridge show alarming results. The whole area, known as Kirkley, has been degraded by the effect of continuous congestion. All the quality of life indicators for the area—unemployment, poverty, health and crime—are so poor that the area qualified for single regeneration budget funding last year. As was recognised in the bid, the area cannot be successfully regenerated without removing the trunk road traffic.
517 Fortunately, there is a solution and it has been known for years—a new, second river crossing and a south Lowestoft relief road. That was consulted upon, a preferred route established and much of it designed only a few years ago. A start date in the mid-1990s was envisaged. However, it was relegated and then deleted from the trunk roads programme. Traditional ways of evaluating road schemes never addressed the full range of economic and environmental benefits that that would bring to the town. Those benefits are mainly local, but I fear that without the new crossing, Lowestoft will find it difficult to develop successfully in the next century.
The corridor has been protected for many years; it is protected by the county and district councils. No demolition is required and no environmental damage would be caused. This is the dominant issue in Lowestoft. The solution that I have described would permit traffic calming and cycleway development on the existing dangerous road. It would raise the quality of life in the town and bring us into the 21st century.
As I have shown, there is the potential to regenerate Lowestoft and develop the port by integrating sea, rail and road modes. However, as things stand, the more port activity there is, the more the bridge is lifted and the more dysfunctional the town becomes. An integrated transport policy could make a difference economically, but there must be investment in a second river crossing to stop each mode getting in each other's way.
Apart from Lowestoft, the constituency of Waveney consists of parts of rural north Suffolk, including the large village of Kessingland—the only place in my constituency bypassed by a dual carriageway. In fact, there are only about three miles of dualled road in my constituency. The historic small market towns of Beccles and Bungay are the other main settlements in Waveney. The main transport issue in those towns is heavy lorries passing through ancient narrow streets.
In Beccles last year, the deputy mayor's wife was nearly killed by a lorry. She was walking on the pavement, while the lorry kept to the road, but as everything is so narrow, she was knocked under the lorry by a wing mirror. Bungay, with equally narrow streets, has a particular problem. It is directly on the only viable route from Bernard Matthews's turkey farms to the processing factory at Holton to the south. The townspeople, surrounding villages and the company all want a satisfactory solution to the problem.
The Bernard Matthews situation deserves particular attention. The company is a massive and vital contributor to the East Anglian economy, with thousands of jobs involved. The company has a great loyalty to East Anglia, but the poor quality of local roads makes the operation of the business more difficult. The company is expanding, and several foreign Governments would love Matthews to locate in their countries. We should take note.
My speech may seem like a long shopping list of transport improvements and, in a sense, it is. But nobody expects the new Government to quickly wave a magic wand. People are only too aware of the financial constraints and strictures, but they do expect a start. For too long, East Anglia—with the exception of the A14—has been overlooked for transport investment, and the far 518 corner of the region, where my constituency lies, has been overlooked most of all. Our transport system is anything but modern.
I end as I began, by stating what we all recognise. We must ensure that we provide a modern transport infrastructure, to enable our businesses to compete successfully in Europe and the world, and to bring the employment that will create a society of which we can be proud. The people of Waveney do not want to be left out.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for his congratulations, and I return the compliment by congratulating him not only on securing the debate, but on being returned to this House for what I have no doubt will be a long parliamentary career. He touched on many of the central issues affecting his constituency—its location, and the serious effects that this has on the economy, and its transport infrastructure.
I am aware of concerns from the coastal areas to the north and east of East Anglia that their remote location and lack of high-quality links to the national road network are adversely affecting their economies and development prospects. In Lowestoft—the main town in my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney's constituency—these concerns are coupled with worries over the effect of heavy traffic flows and congestion on main roads in the town. The concentration of movements on Mutford lock bridge and the bascule bridge, which are the only connections between the two halves of the town, is a significant problem. My hon. Friend gave some detail of the difficulties.
One of the first priorities of the new Government is the creation of effective regional development agencies across the country. Their task will be to co-ordinate regional economic development, help attract inward investment, and support business. Last week, we published a discussion paper on RDAs, seeking comments on their objectives, role and functions. It is our intention to introduce effective RDAs by April 1999 in all regions, taking account of local views on how they will operate.
Transport planning, transport operation and the provision of transport infrastructure are just some of the activities in which RDAs might become involved. Before making any decisions, we will carefully consider the views expressed during the consultation process. The issues described by my hon. Friend are exactly those in which we would expect RDAs to take an interest. I have little doubt that he will represent his views and his constituents' concerns to the review.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport earlier today announced our proposals for carrying out our manifesto commitment for a strategic review of the national road programme. Again, we intend to consult widely on that review, the objective of which will be to determine the role that trunk roads should play in a sustainable transport system and to establish a forward investment programme for the trunk road network in England. It will have a wider focus than previous trunk road reviews, and will contribute to our thinking on an integrated transport strategy, the necessity for which—for supporting the economy and enabling it to develop—my hon. Friend explained in some detail
. 519 Consultation will be launched in July, inviting responses by the end of October. We hope to announce the conclusions of the review next spring.
Both those exercises demonstrate the importance we attach to regional economic development and the close involvement of local authorities, businesses and the community in the development of their areas. The new organisations and programmes we will put in place will ensure more effective economic development strategies. By consultation and creation of regional bodies, decisions will be taken at the appropriate level.
My hon. Friend referred to some roads in particular. The A11, A12 and A47 trunk roads connect the Waveney area to the rest of the country. In recent years, £250 million has been invested in improvements to the A11 and A47, but we are aware of the importance attached to the completion of dualling the A11 from the M11 to Norwich. Three schemes now remain, including the Roudham Heath-Attleborough improvement, which has cleared all its statutory hurdles.
The previous Government made substantial reductions in the proposals for the development of both the A12 and A47. Those reductions included the withdrawal of both the strategic route dualling and local environmental bypass schemes. Again, my hon. Friend touched on both actions. The Waveney and Great Yarmouth areas are particularly concerned about the completion of dualling the A47 from Norwich to Great Yarmouth, which would complete a dual carriageway connection to the national road network via the A11.
The opportunity is now there for local interests to influence the trunk road programme in the review that we have announced. No doubt strong representations will be made, and they will be considered carefully, along with the other points that my hon. Friend so tellingly made.
The A48 from the A1 to Great Yarmouth is one of the first six roads in the country for the Highways Agency's route strategy approach. A comprehensive strategy for effective management and improvement of the whole route will be produced.
Waveney has been significantly affected by the removal of the A12 Wrentham bypass and the Kessingland-Pleasurewood schemes. The latter would have produced a completely new A12 route through Lowestoft, and included a third harbour crossing between the Mutford and bascule bridges. With the North sea on the east and Oulton broad on the west, it is not possible to take a conventional bypass around Lowestoft.
In recent years, my Department has given strong financial support to both Norfolk and Suffolk county council improvements to the A143-A146 primary route, which links the A14 at Bury St. Edmunds with Waveney and Great Yarmouth. Those improvements have been a series of bypasses of local communities, most recently Rickinghall-Botesdale, Scole-Stuston and Brockdish-Needham. The much improved road serves communities along the northern boundary of Waveney, such as Bungay and Beccles, as well as Lowestoft.
My hon. Friend described the considerable local problems of congestion within the main town of Lowestoft, and their effect on the efficiency of local businesses. Traffic movements are concentrated on the two bridges, and there are particular problems when the A12 bascule bridge is lifted to allow shipping to pass between the inner and outer harbours.
520 As my hon. Friend said, I have witnessed the operation. May I reassure him that it is, indeed, indelibly printed on my memory? The bridge is of critical importance to the local road network. Recent inspections have shown that it is in generally good condition, and it does, of course, receive regular maintenance, as well as replacement and refurbishment of major components.
The A12 Kessingland-Pleasurewood improvement through Lowestoft was withdrawn, because it was a very expensive urban scheme, with the third harbour crossing a particularly expensive element. The scheme would have catered mainly for local traffic. Consideration was given to taking the scheme forward as a design, build, finance and operate project, but shadow tolling would still place a considerable burden on the Department's budget. Faced with tight limits on expenditure, a third harbour crossing for Lowestoft could not be regarded as a high priority for investment in national terms.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of rail to his constituents and constituency. We want to ensure that greater use is made of the railway, with more passengers and freight travelling by train. The railway system must be run in the public interest, with higher levels of investment and the effective enforcement of train operators' service commitments. The Government will use all the tools at our disposal to ensure that the public interest always comes first.
Anglia Railways, which provides train services from Lowestoft to Norwich and Ipswich, is turning in a good performance against its passenger charter targets for both punctuality and reliability. Its £200,000 "bikes on trains" project, part funded by my Department, has led the field in developing facilities for the carriage of cycles on trains. Its local trains will now carry four bicycles each, and it has earned the first ever cycle mark. It is also involved in a £1.6 million capital challenge project with other operators, Railtrack and local authorities to provide real-time passenger information at stations throughout the area.
We are also keen—as is my hon. Friend—to see more freight being carried by rail, and I know that some businesses in Lowestoft are considering rail freight. English, Welsh and Scottish Railways is taking a very positive attitude to seeking new business, and Railtrack has recently appointed freight officers in each of its zones. Grant is available for rail freight facilities, and we welcome worthwhile schemes.
We are working towards our White Paper on an integrated transport strategy. I have been impressed by the Lowestoft partnerships set up in Waveney to take forward an integrated approach to economic development and sustainable transport. Again, that was a theme highlighted by my hon. Friend tonight. Suffolk county council and Waveney district council, together with their community and business partners, have produced successful bids for transport package, capital challenge, single regeneration budget and European funding.
The main thrust of transport policy in Waveney is very much in accordance with Government policies. Investment is proposed to assist economic regeneration; encourage visitors and tourists; manage demand and promote alternative modes of transport; improve public transport services and facilities; provide safe links for pedestrians, the mobility-impaired and cyclists; enable physical improvement and improve social conditions; and reduce pollution.
521 The Lowestoft transport package was accepted in December 1996, with an initial allocation of £150,000 for 1997–98. Subject to satisfactory progress, further funding should be made available in future years. In the recent capital challenge round, £2.9 million has been allocated for completion of the Lowestoft northern spine road, which has also attracted substantial private sector investment and starts construction later this year. That scheme improves access to the A12 and A47 to the north for industrial traffic, and provides substantial environmental benefits to the town centre and adjacent residential areas.
I am happy to report that a high level of cycling has been maintained in Lowestoft, with investment by local authorities, the private sector and developers. Capital challenge funding has provided an additional £250,000 towards strategic cycle routes in Lowestoft, north of Lake Lothing. Those are considerable investments of local transport funds.
As well as those transport investments, single regeneration budget and European objective 5b programmes are approved for regeneration of the Kirkley area and business support and expansion.
The local approach of combining economic development and sustainable transport is, as I have said, very much in accordance with the Government's policies. The councils are forging ever more effective partnerships with local businesses, the community and transport interests. The support of the chamber of commerce and industry and the Lowestoft 2000 economic regeneration partnership for recent bids has been significant. Quality partnerships are proposed with the local bus operators.
The Highways Agency and the Government office for eastern region have agreed to join the steering group of the Lowestoft partnership's south Lowestoft study 522 of traffic problems and environmental and regeneration issues. The Highways Agency is responsible for the A12 through Waveney, and will work closely with the local authorities. The study will consider among other things the pros and cons of a south Lowestoft relief road on the line of the previous trunk road scheme.
Proposals for major road schemes followed by withdrawal create particular problems for development and regeneration in urban areas. The desirability of major urban road construction, such as the previously proposed A12 Kessingland-Pleasurewood improvement, has to be questioned, as we cannot cater for ever increasing use of the car in our towns. I was pleased by my hon. Friend's underlining of the concerns for the environment in his area.
That questioning must be accepted, and appropriate transport and development plans have to be produced. Waveney seems to be well on the way to doing that. Any proposals for major road construction would need to be well justified and supported.
I look forward to future package bids and to assessments of how effectively the investment in Waveney is delivering sustainable results. The Highways Agency and the Government office for eastern region will continue their involvement, in particular considering the way in which the management of the A12 trunk road fits into the general Lowestoft transport strategy.
On a national scale, in considering both the regional development agencies and the review of the trunk road programme, we will, of course, take careful note of any representations from Waveney and similarly placed authorities in Norfolk and Suffolk. I look forward to many conversations with my hon. Friend.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.