§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the Kingskerswell bypass, which has had a remarkable history. It was first set down as a route in the county development plan as long ago as 1951, and my researches show that it was clearly mooted for 15 years before that.
For those hon. Members who are not here today, but will avidly read Hansard tomorrow, I am talking about the four-and-a-half-mile stretch of road between Newton Abbot and Torquay. It is called a bypass, and I suppose that when it was first thought of that might have been an accurate description, inasmuch as it bypassed the old village of Kingskerswell, but these days it effectively cuts the village in half.
There are many things that one could say about the bypass and people's attitude to it, but I am anxious to give the Minister time to respond, and I know that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) will also want to play a part in this debate.
The most significant factor to explain what the bypass is all about is the traffic flow figures. I am reliably informed that about 35,000 vehicles a day use the road. It is customary in debates such as this to say that the traffic gets much worse in summer, but in fact it gets only slightly worse: there is no more than 10 per cent. more traffic. My plea, and the case that has always been made for the Kingskerswell bypass, cannot be misrepresented— or, to use a more neutral term, misunderstood—on the basis that the present road is a perfectly happy little road until the tourists come down and the traffic explodes. A huge volume of traffic uses the road, with only a slight increase in summer.
When the present road gets blocked, traffic backs up all the way from Torquay to the Penn Inn roundabout. Anyone travelling to Newton Abbot, let alone Torquay, will immediately feel the effects. The effect on people's quality of life is bad enough, when their community is divided by a steady stream of polluting traffic and they have to resort to using rat runs to get to and from work, not to mention how people feel in adjacent areas when that traffic goes through their locality—all that is true, and if time allowed one could say much more about it—but there are also effects on the area's economic viability to be considered.
The Newton Abbot-Torquay-Paignton area is defined as a main area of economic activity. The effect of not being able to travel sensibly from Newton Abbot to Torquay is completely to seize up the potential of the land that lies beyond where the end of the bypass would be. That says something about Torquay, and a great deal more about the other areas.
Devon's excellent county engineer, Edward Chorlton, said:
The Newton Abbot to Torquay corridor already experiences severe congestion throughout much of the day and … is directly affecting the locational decisions of local businesses, with a number of local companies having relocated away from Torbay as a consequence of difficulties experienced in maintaining a reliable and predictable means of highway access.…From the above it can be appreciated that the Newton Abbot to Torquay corridor is not only of great importance in terms of accommodating movement within the area but also of strategic1226importance in terms of providing the principal connection between Torbay and the wider area of Devon and the rest of the Country. It is also crucial to ensuring that the development potential of the area is unlocked.Anyone who knows Edward Chorlton's reputation will realise that he is a national figure in such matters. Obviously, he is concerned about a local scheme, but he has used his words carefully and precisely.In terms of the social, commercial and environmental consequences, there is absolutely no case to be made against the bypass. It is often said, when Members of Parliament meet in the stilly watches of the night to say how much they appreciate the contributions that their constituents make from time to time, that there are no votes in bypasses. That is probably true, but the extraordinary fact about this bypass is that I could count on the fingers of one hand—with some to spare—the number of letters of objection to it that I have had.
The Kingskerswell bypass is unique for this reason, if for no other: that there is no opposition to it. There is no lesser crested aphid out there in the elephant grass waiting to reveal itself and hold up the scheme. Everybody, be they environmentalists, residents, holidaymakers or people with an interest in the commercial destiny of that part of the world, agrees that the scheme is vital.
It is not surprising that the Department of Transport took up the scheme in 1990, believing that the road should be trunked, and accorded it priority one status. When major schemes were halted—indeed, cancelled—in 1995, this scheme was not cancelled, but adjourned indefinitely.
When it suddenly emerged that the scheme was not to go ahead, there was an outcry. That is an over-used word, but there was an outcry none the less. The then Minister with responsibility for the west country, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), initiated a review to find out whether it would be possible to revive the scheme by other means. With all-party agreement, following visits from Ministers and meetings with Devon county council, the rules on the private finance initiative were altered so that it would be possible for the local authority to take over the scheme.
As the authority would be continuing work that had already been started, it had to be given assurances that it would not have costs dumped on it without recourse to Government help.
§ Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)I congratulate my hon. Friend on landing this debate. The issue is extremely important and concerns all his constituents and most of mine. I support him to the hilt, and I feel sure that the Minister will respond as helpfully as she possibly can.
§ Mr. NichollsThat is certainly my expectation, too, for reasons that I shall reveal in a moment or two. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That says it all: this is of infinitely more significance than a matter affecting merely one constituency.
The PFI scheme went ahead swimmingly. It received the support, as it had to, of the public-private partnership programme—the four Ps—and proceeded straightforwardly. It was attractive to those interested in PFI. The shadow tolling arrangements, which would have been the very basis of a PFI solution, are highly attractive to any company that might consider such a scheme.
1227 The figure of 35,000 people a day speaks for itself. I was assured only this morning that there had been a great deal of interest in the scheme.
One can easily imagine the disappointment when, in February, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in the person of the head of branch, local transport policy, wrote to Devon county council about the latest list of endorsed local authority PFI units:
This does not include any new transport projects as Ministers have decided not to endorse significant transport schemes for the moment. In reaching this decision they were concerned that a decision to endorse such projects now would have to be taken outside the context of a strategic framework for the assessment of schemes of this nature.That was it.At that stage, Devon county council—quite properly— had to ask itself whether it could continue to spend substantial sums on preparation when it had been given the clearest possible indication that the matter would not go ahead. At a stroke, defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory. The scheme was tantalisingly close, but apparently it has now disappeared into the ether. That is not acceptable.
What do we do now? This is not any old bypass. There are Members of Parliament—I am not one—who will paint a picture of a local scheme as having global, international or cosmic relevance. However, this scheme is not one of those. The facts are clear—the scheme's significance goes far beyond Teignbridge, important though that is. The PFI scheme exists and is waiting to be used. Work has been done. If it is not taken forward, it will represent a substantial waste of money, apart from the disappointed hopes of those who relied on that work.
Even if today is the first part of the process, merely accepting the status quo is not an option. I am not expecting the Minister to say that she will reverse everything. That would be unfair to her, and I would not dream of doing that—I have been here too long.
I do not wish to embarrass the Minister—but if I do, I am doing so in the House of Commons, so it will get very little publicity. I have been impressed on two specific occasions in relation to constituency matters where I expected a stock reply from her, but I did not get one. The first part was a stock reply from a word processor, but the second part contradicted the first part, and showed that the Minister was keenly involved. It is clear that when hon. Members write to her about matters of real concern, she gets stuck in. Effectively, that is what I am asking her to do today.
I am not asking the Minister to reverse everything— I am asking her to take a personal involvement. She is responsible for road traffic matters, and whatever emerges from the overall strategic plan for roads, it is inconceivable that the Kingskerswell bypass will not form part of it. That would be common ground among everyone involved.
The Minister may say that the Government's position is what it is, and that the justification was as Mrs. Lister said. I hope that she will agree to meet a properly constituted delegation from the area—the names of whom will be given in advance—so that she can hear local people explain why this is so important. She can hear directly why the rules were specifically altered to allow the scheme to take place.
1228 I am asking the Minister to come back to me in due course to consider the proposition that the project is unique, and to say that it can be looked at afresh. Merely saying that it is all very sad, but that nothing can be done, would give credence to an attitude I detect from many of her hon. Friends—although not from her. Their attitude is, "Does the west country matter? Will it be necessary to have Labour Members of Parliament from the south-west region to achieve a second term?" No, it will not.
That is not the attitude I have had from the hon. Lady, following correspondence. I am asking her to say, without criticising Government policy, that she will look at the scheme, and tell us how she might deal with it.
§ Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—and, I hope, the Minister—I wish to make a one-minute intervention.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)Order. Did the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister before the debate commenced?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerAs a courtesy, he should do so. Is the Minister agreeable?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)indicated assent.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerPerhaps in future the hon. Gentleman will make that arrangement before the start of the debate.
§ Mr. SteenNormally, I would do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was heavily involved in the previous debate on the D'Oyly Carte. I am grateful to the Minister.
My constituency borders the Kingskerswell bypass, and I was delighted by the boundary changes which meant that my constituency did not include Kingskerswell—which is a nightmare. It is the one bottleneck in south Devon, if not the whole of Devon. The Minister may remember the Exeter bypass 20 or 30 years ago, where cars and caravans were blocked nose to tail throughout the year. The bypass is a blockage from morning to night.
One may try to avoid the bypass, but Torquay suffers badly because tourists cannot get in and out. I see the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in his place: I am not suggesting that we should help him, but we do want to help Torbay. I have more than one third of Torbay in my constituency, and it would provide enormous help to tourists if some of this absolute nightmare could be relieved.
The strange thing is that, whatever time of day or night one travels on the bypass, it is full. There is always a blockage, with cars turning right or left, and one can never drive through, even at the 40 mph speed limit. It normally takes about half an hour to an hour, on a good day, to go on the Kingskerswell bypass. I am dispassionate, in the sense that the bypass is not in my constituency, but I receive letters virtually weekly from constituents who say 1229 that it is the worst jam they have ever seen. They get furious; if one is concerned about road rage, one should be concerned with this bypass.
I agree whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, who espoused his cause so well. He is well known as a tremendous and courteous fighter for the west country. I join forces with him today in saying that we are listening with keen interest to what the Minister has to say.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), not only on obtaining the debate, but on the passion and detail with which he espoused his cause. I say that entirely objectively, although I am grateful for his gracious words.
It is clear that this matter is of overwhelming concern to the local community, and I am sure that all hon. Members can understand the desire for a solution to be found. I say "the local community", but the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) also pointed out the concerns of his constituents. Concerns have been expressed from as far away as Plymouth, Sutton. On 29 July, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), in which she raised the concerns of one of her constituents about the bypass.
The bypass is an important factor in the economic development of Torbay. On 17 June, the head of parliamentary affairs of the Federation of Small Businesses wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, highlighting the fact that the federation was involved in a campaign on the Kingskerswell bypass.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge claimed that this was a unique scheme, but Kingskerswell, regrettably, is not alone in suffering increased levels of traffic. Many towns and villages are damaged by the relentless increase in road traffic, and the revised traffic forecasts published in October 1997 show it increasing by nearly 40 per cent. over the next 20 years.
This is quite unacceptable, and it is therefore clear— there is widespread consensus about this—that, if current policies are not adjusted, congestion will worsen, the impact on the environment will be more severe, and those who do not have access to private transport will find it increasingly difficult to get around.
It is for that reason that the Government embarked on fundamental reviews of transport policies last year. It is important that we develop a sustainable and integrated transport system, which makes best use of the contribution that each mode can make and ensures that all options are considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair.
We have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and, thirdly, to provide new infrastructure. Using existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice, because it has been provided at substantial financial and environmental cost and we must make best use of that investment. However, we must also seriously consider the two other, harder options.
1230 Management of demand is a vast subject, which encompasses reducing the need to travel by land use planning, assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes could be encouraged, and, inevitably, control of demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms.
Providing new infrastructure is a difficult option, financially and in terms of environmental impact. Our starting point is that we shall not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative. Even then, there will be difficult choices to be made, because limited resources are available.
We have conducted a wide-ranging public consultation exercise on the development of an integrated transport policy, and a White Paper, which will be published in the spring, will set out the framework of our sustainable transport policy for this Parliament and beyond.
No final decisions on policy options have yet been taken, but underlying principles are already clear. We are committed to facilitating the mobility of the British people in a more environmentally, economically and socially sustainable way. We must provide choice between various modes of transport and aim to encourage people to use their cars less. We want better, more integrated transport systems, especially better public transport. The Government also want more responsible use of cars and lorries in terms of safety and of environmental performance, and greater emphasis on walking and cycling and on the particular needs of disabled people, the elderly and children.
We recognise that, in some circumstances, provision of new road infrastructure would be the best way of tackling transport problems. Bypasses in particular can have beneficial effects in certain circumstances, by removing through traffic from communities. The hon. Member for Teignbridge detailed the benefits that would accrue to his constituents if a bypass was built.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge also referred to the high volumes of traffic passing through Kingskerswell on the A380, and to the environmental damage it causes to the community. Traffic flows through Kingskerswell have increased considerably in recent years, from 20,000 vehicles a day in the mid-1980s to nearly 35,000 in 1995. Growth on such a scale is unsustainable, and shows graphically why we must tackle such problems with new policies and attitudes.
§ Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)We have heard a great deal about jams today, but the Minister's remarks suggest that we shall have jams tomorrow. What specific measures could be taken now to reduce traffic congestion on that road? Even if she said today that a bypass would be built in the shortest possible time, we would face at least five years of increasing congestion. We need action to be taken now to reduce or remove the congestion. Could she give advice to the relevant highway authority— or take a specific measure—that would reduce traffic congestion now?
§ Ms JacksonThe Highways Agency published details of its tool kit and the range of methods for traffic management on our trunk network. Local authorities have powers of restraint, but there are particular difficulties with this stretch of road, because it is a single carriageway 1231 that runs between two dual carriageways. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman in detail, if he will allow me to do so because of the time constraint that we are under.
§ Ms JacksonBy all means. I should also be happy to furnish the hon. Member for Teignbridge with a copy, if he wants to be patched in.
I am aware that there have been proposals to bypass Kingskerswell for many years, and they were developed as a trunk road scheme in the early 1990s in association with a proposal to trunk the A380 once the bypass had been built. However, decisions to remove the scheme from the active trunk road programme, in 1995, and from the programme altogether, in 1996, mean that responsibility for developing solutions to Kingskerswell's problems now falls to the local highway authority, Devon county council.
That is not to say that the Government wash their hands of the problem: it is almost inevitable that implementing whatever solution the county council chooses to take forward will require central funding, but responsibility for developing a detailed solution rests firmly with the local authority.
Since 1996, the council has continued with preparation of the Kingskerswell bypass with a view to its becoming a candidate for funding under the private finance initiative. The hon. Member for Teignbridge referred to a recent letter to Devon county council from my Department which detailed the announcement in February by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing of the latest endorsed local authority PFI projects. The list did not contain any new transport schemes, and it may help if I elaborate on the reasons for that.
An important part of the integrated transport and roads reviews is the development of a new open and fair framework for assessing transport projects. It will embody the fundamental criteria that we have set for transport projects, such as environmental impact, economy, safety, 1232 integration and accessibility, and will cover the extent to which various options, including public transport provision, might resolve the problems.
The framework will enable us to take forward decisions about which schemes or projects should be funded within our new transport policies. We hope to publish details later this year, but thought it right and proper to advise authorities such as Devon county council which are working on PFI schemes that they might wish to postpone further development work until they know what the new framework involves.
§ Mr. NichollsThe Minister makes a helpful point. If I have understood the county council's position correctly, it takes the view that it would be irresponsible to continue to spend money after receiving such a letter as Mrs. Lister's. Is she saying that councils should hold on and wait for the review, because the Government could say within a matter of months whether councils should go ahead? Is the position for the county as awful as that which followed the action taken by the previous Administration in 1995, or is it a temporary blip?
§ Ms JacksonI understand that the Kingskerswell bypass would require several years of planned development work before it reached any possible date of contract signature. The new strategic framework will be in place in good time for any decision on whether it will have priority for PFI credit support. In the light of what I have said, Devon county council will be aware that it should hold on, and that it will know how to proceed when the new framework is in place.
The Government fully support appropriate use of PFI for transport schemes. We of course understand local disappointment that the Kingskerswell bypass was not on the list of endorsed PFI projects. However, our proposed solution—that transport problems should be assessed against a new, fair and open framework—means that it was only right to warn the county council about the risks of carrying out further work on the bypass scheme before the new framework is published. I trust that my answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Teignbridge will assist it in any further consideration.