HC Deb 16 December 1998 vol 322 cc1063-78

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

9.26 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of the greatest concern to my constituents and those of neighbouring constituencies. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) are in their places. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Jackson) is to reply to the debate. I note that it is the second time today that she has had to do so. I suspect that, as we approach the end of 1998, she will receive the accolade of becoming the Minister who has responded to the most Adjournment debates this year. I thank her for staying with us for just one more time this year.

The debate is timely. The issues have often been raised with the Government by me, my predecessor and other Members. Circumstances surrounding the A14 have become of increasingly severe concern in my constituency, partly as a result of the rate at which accidents have occurred and the severity of such accidents, but principally as a result of the increase in traffic and congestion. Concern was reflected most recently by a dramatically large response in the region to a series of compelling articles in the Cambridge Evening News.

The A14 in Cambridgeshire is one of the most heavily used and congested trunk roads in the country. Seventy eight thousand vehicles a day travel on the three-lane section of the A 14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon which passes through my constituency. The Highways Agency calculates that 66,000 vehicles a day travel on the two-lane section between Bar Hill and Huntingdon. The traffic has a very high heavy goods vehicle content: recent observations recorded 5,000 vehicles an hour at peak times, and, of those, one in four was a heavy goods vehicle.

The Minister has recently answered several questions on the issue. One such answer illustrated that the stretch of the A14 to which I have referred is among the 10 most heavily used sections of dual carriageway in the country. I am familiar with some of the others—for example, between the M25 and Southend, the Al27 is a two-lane section with a high level of usage, but a considerable difference is the extent to which local traffic has been grade-separated on the Al27 by the installation of new junctions and so on. Such safety measures have not been installed on all such roads.

The British Road Federation took the trouble to write to me when it became aware of this Adjournment debate. The BRF described the A14 as one of the most economically important routes in the country. The debate is of significance for a wider region than simply my constituency and the neighbouring ones.

At each end of the stretch of road between Huntingdon and Cambridge in particular, two heavily used two-lane roads feed in. On one side there is the A14 east-west route coming in as a two-lane section. Recently the A1(M) was opened, as the Minister knows, by her noble Friend Lord Whitty. That road from the north is a four-lane section coming down towards Huntingdon, so on that side there are six lanes feeding into the A14. At the other end, there is the A14 going on to the east coast ports and the M11 going down to the M25 and the Dartford bridge.

A classic bottleneck is thus created on a trans-European network. The road is in a unique category. I do not know of any other road anywhere in the country that occupies such a critical position for east-west traffic and also for north-south traffic. It so happens that its orientation from the north-west to the south-east makes it a convenient part of routes in both those significant directions. Once the Al-M1 link was completed, it was clear that high levels of traffic growth could occur in the future.

The road is not congested simply by trunk road traffic. It is also used for local purposes, which gives rise to a serious complication. Originally, in 1972, it was designed to be a three-lane all-purpose carriageway. The stretch in question was built only as a two-lane carriageway. I imagine that the policy of "predict and provide" did not exist then, but even at that early stage, expectations of a need for a three-lane section were rare. That is what should have been built.

In the past 10 years there has been a 68 per cent. growth in traffic. There has been a significant increase since the opening of the A 1-M1 link. I suspect that the upgrading of the Al to motorway standard up to Peterborough will in due course lead to a further increase in traffic, although in a reply to me a day or two ago, the Minister suggested that that would not be the case. We shall see.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to Cambridge today as a growth centre. In response to questions after his statement, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he would foster economic development in areas such as Cambridge. The White Paper states that the Government is reviewing how the planning system can best help promote the needs of clusters of businesses in growth industries; and the implications for their expansion for other land uses such as housing and transport infrastructure. Not only is the road critical for existing transport purposes, but the pressures on the road make it impossible to contemplate economic development such as that envisaged by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or development of the kind proposed at Alconbury, which is the subject of consideration by Huntingdon district council. It is extremely difficult to consider the proposals for a new settlement close to Cambridge. One of the principal suggestions for that is a site north of the A14, with considerable traffic on and off that road.

We must recognise that—in the absence of significant change in the area's transport infrastructure and, most particularly, the upgrading of the A14—those developments would be unsustainable. The Government may soon be contemplating economic development and its promotion in the Cambridge area, which will not be achieved without a Government U-turn in respect of transport infrastructure and the A14 in particular.

I am told that the Highways Agency estimates that the theoretical capacity on the two-lane section of the A 14 is 68,000 vehicles a day, and that traffic flow would begin to break down at that point, with congestion occurring. On-site observations by Cambridgeshire county council have shown that breakdown occurs at about 50,000 vehicles a day and becomes increasingly severe.

Unfortunately congestion occurs daily and the consequences are severe. The number of accidents is high, and a personal injury accident occurs every three days on that road. People in and around my constituency and the Minister will know that a serious accident on 18 November at Lolworth resulted in a fatality. Given the circumstances, it could easily have led to additional deaths.

Hon. Members will realise that when a road arrives at the point at which congestion is assumed to occur, people divert on to other roads. Measurement of congestion on the A 14 cannot be achieved simply by looking at how many cars use it, because drivers are increasingly using other local roads and causing congestion. There is rat running through villages such as Hilton and along the A428, which is virtually at full capacity. On that road, at the new village settlement of Cambourne, 3,300 new homes are being built, and the first will be sold in the summer of next year. There is increasingly no way out on the road. When blockages occur on the A14, the consequences are congestion in all those neighbouring villages, and congestion and blockages on many neighbouring roads such as the A1198 and the A428. In some villages adjacent to the Al4 there is gridlock. Two examples will suffice. Bar Hill is a substantial village of some 3,000 homes, which exits only on to the A14. There is no other way in and out, so when the A14 is congested—it is often congested in both directions at the same time—traffic backs up into the village and people cannot come and go.

The small village of Lolworth exits only on to the westbound carriageway of the A14. If one wants to go from Lolworth to Cambridge, one has to go west to the next junction and then come back on the eastbound carriageway. People have to enter and exit the carriageway twice, and they have two chances of meeting congestion. I once stood in the centre of the village when the A14 was blocked. Cars shot past me on Lolworth high street, going to the top of the village. Five minutes later they shot back again.

The Minister will appreciate that the road—which is part of a trans-European network, part of the trunk road system and an integral and vital part of the national road structure—is essentially a local road for certain purposes. That is one reason why we must deal with the road. Otherwise, life in the neighbouring area will become unbearable.

Comprehensive improvements to the A14 were in the Government's trunk road programme, but in July Ministers took them out of the self-styled targeted programme of improvements and substituted the proposal for a multi-modal study. In the past few days the Minister disclosed in a parliamentary answer that the start date for the study, in tranche 2, will be 2000–01. As the Minister has previously said that the study itself will take a year to complete, that means that it will be at least three years, and perhaps four, before we know whether the Government intend to upgrade the A14. No doubt Ministers will then say that design studies and public consultation have to be undertaken and programme finance sought. By that time, Cambridgeshire will have been strangled by gridlock.

My purpose tonight is to urge Ministers to recognise the need for urgent action and to respond in four key ways. First, the Highways Agency should undertake immediate traffic flow management and safety measures. A study in December 1995 identified 14 potential improvements. Others could now be contemplated, including stronger safety barriers, and so on.

In response to recent questions, the Minister told me that a number of those improvements are to take place in the spring of next year. Among the measures identified three years ago, the most important, relating to slip roads and lay-bys, are not yet planned, and I urge the Minister that they should be.

Secondly, the Government have dropped the A14 improvement from the programme. That decision was flawed. Using the Government's own criteria for the assessment of environmental impact, safety, economic factors, accessibility and integration, and based on a study completed by Cambridgeshire county council, it is clear that the improvement of the A14 would bring large and quantifiable benefits.

For example, without giving an exhaustive account, in relation to environmental impact, the county council has identified an extensive reduction in noise pollution and a reduction in rat running, to which I have referred. In relation to safety, poor design of the junctions and the entry and exit points has given rise to high accident levels.

On the economy, I refer to the views of the British Road Federation and to the importance of Cambridge as a sub-region and the long journey times faced by companies which are having to engage in just-in-time deliveries and, as a matter of course, to build in the potential for considerable delays when using the road for deliveries.

On accessibility and public transport, many buses going into and out of Cambridge use the A 14. Therefore, even public transport is significantly failing because of the character of the road. At certain points, the A14 is also a dangerous road for pedestrians. Last Sunday, there was a tragic death on the northern bypass, so there is a clear danger there.

On the potential for integration between different modes of transport, the A14 is not well optimised for multi-modal activity or for transfer between different transport modes. I suspect that it could not be without grade separation between the trunk road and local roads.

I look to the Minister this evening to concede that when the July announcements were made, and "A New Deal for Trunk Roads: Understanding the New Approach to Appraisal" was published, no full assessment of the A14 was made in those terms. Will she now agree to consider, perhaps jointly with the Highways Agency and Cambridgeshire county council, those five criteria in relation to the road and see whether the decision was flawed and can be reviewed?

As an alternative to improvements to the A14 in the programme, the Government seek a multi-modal study. I am sure that both sides of the House will agree that to maximise the use of public transport is clearly right, but my third point is to seek from the Minister a concession to reality—that there is, in truth, no prospect of meeting a significant part of the present traffic use, still less the whole of the future traffic growth, by public transport options. Therefore, whatever the outcome of the multi-modal study, significant improvement, upgrade and grade separation of the A14 is part of the solution. In parallel with the multi-modal study, there should be design studies. If they progress rapidly, public consultation should occur in parallel with the multi-modal study on preparing the A 14 for an upgrade at some time.

If the study is not made relatively soon, there will be no chance of the road being upgraded within the next 10 years, and that would be wholly unacceptable. Therefore, whatever happens, I ask the Minister to assure the House, my constituents and the people of Cambridgeshire that three years would simply be too long. If such a study is to be made, it should be included in tranche 1. I shall certainly be pressing for that in the regional planning conference, although I hope that the Minister will pre-empt that undertaking, and herself undertake to consider including the study in tranche 1.

Does the Minister accept that, whatever happens, the A 14 must be improved so that local traffic is separated from the trunk road? It really is untenable for the situation to continue—a situation that applies also on stretches of the A1, and that has provided part of the reasoning behind proposed improvements on that road—in which large amounts of local traffic enter and exit the A14, thereby making lane changes. The presence of such traffic is the reason why there are so many dangers on the A14. Does the Minister accept that we must find ways of keeping local traffic off the main road?

I am not interested simply in laying tarmac over South Cambridgeshire or driving a motorway through my constituency for the sake of it—far from it. We should not be in the business of building roads except when they are strictly necessary. However, I am determined—on the basis of observation, evidence and the views of my constituents—that we must accept a realistic approach to the road. There is no way forward for transport along the corridor except the improvement of the A14. Improvement of the A14 would meet the Government's own criteria—not of predicting and providing or of catering for future traffic growth, but of dealing with the congestion and bottlenecks currently in the system. Congestion and bottlenecks are occurring and have to be dealt with on the basis of current evidence.

Development is coming fast, and the infrastructure is not coping and will not cope with it. If action does not come soon, there will be further deaths and injuries, and congestion will worsen rapidly. Moreover, the local economy and, in some respects, the national economy, will become gridlocked. The Road Haulage Association and the British Road Federation have testified to the road's critical economic importance. The British Road Federation, in a letter to me, itself regretted the Government's apparent lack of urgency in finding a solution to the problem.

Thousands of my constituents know only too well that their lives will be made ever more miserable until the road is improved. I call on the Minister to show understanding, and to respond positively to this debate.

As I realise that the situation will not be changed before Christmas, I should like, through the medium of this debate, to suggest to my constituents that they should try over the Christmas period to stay at home and not drive on the road. If they do have to drive, I ask them to drive safely.

I should like also to wish the Minister—when the time comes—a happy Christmas, especially if she is able in her reply to bring added Christmas cheer to my constituents by responding positively to some of the points that I have raised.

9.48 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this debate, and I thank him for his courtesy in allowing me to speak in it.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is quite surprised to hear me speaking on roads, as she knows from her previous experience of hearing me speak in transport debates that I usually talk about pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, specifically rail transport. She knows that I am a great champion of those means of transport. However, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has made some valuable points, and there is cross-party support in the county council and in the city of Cambridge for some improvement to be made to the A14.

I should like to take a little time to explain the reasons why improvement to the A14 is necessary, and perhaps to go back over some history. It may be helpful to do so.

The previous Government decided not to continue with the A 14 widening scheme. I have a letter from John Watts, the previous transport Minister, to Cambridgeshire county council in February 1997. He explained: The A14-M11-A10 Widening Scheme was withdrawn from the programme after careful consideration of the scheme's economics and the environmental data, to remove uncertainty and planning blight. That decision of the previous Government has been continued by this one.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement on the competitiveness White Paper today. Last Monday I was fortunate enough to visit a firm on the Cambridge science park. I must apologise to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), because I think that it is in his constituency, but it is only a few feet over the border with mine—apologies if they are due. I always feel that the science park should belong to Cambridge city and I am sorry that it does not.

The firm, Biogemma, is owned by a French company that thinks it important to have a research outlet on the Cambridge science park because of the world-beating research that goes on there. It employs about 40 people in high-value jobs, doing research into food technology. The managing director told me that the transport situation has become very difficult, because whenever there is an accident on the A14, the traffic backs up down Milton road. It is impossible even for those trying to travel within Cambridge to get out of the science park, let alone those going on to the A14. They are virtually trapped in the science park. That is not conducive to good business on the science park, so there is a real and immediate problem.

Those who work on the science park should be looking at alternative means of transport. Unfortunately, for many of them such alternative means are not in place. We do not have a rail link even part of the way to Huntingdon. If the Cambridge to St. Ives rail line were reopened—I have campaigned for that for many years—there would be an alternative and people would be able to leave their cars behind. However, that facility is not in place.

Earlier this year I wrote to the county council to find out whether that route was still on its list of projects that should go ahead. My reply from the assistant director of planning said: the Council's current policy is to pursue the development of a rail link on this route. I am pleased to report that and to support it. The assistant director went on:

It seems likely that any public transport service along this route will need to be funded through a combination of PFI and developer contributions, and we will be meeting with the Government Office to discuss this once growth options for the Cambridge sub-region have been explored". Desirable though a railway line is, I am afraid that it still seems a long way off. The problems, however, are immediate. I want essential safety measures to be carried out on the Al4 and I support the plea of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for an earlier study than the second tranche study that has been promised. We need to look at the A 14 corridor, the rail link and the road link and see what essential improvements can be made.

I entirely support the Government's transport policy. It is absolutely right that we should try to reduce road transport which causes pollution and congestion and is not an efficient means of moving people from A to B. I hope that in the long term, most people who use the A 14 will find an alternative route by rail, bus or some means other than private cars. Many of them could, if the alternatives were available.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)

When?

Mrs. Campbell

There was no need for that shouted remark, as I am being entirely supportive. There are no alternatives at the moment and it is likely to be a long time before there are. I am asking for a short-term solution to ensure both that my constituents can travel in safety, and that the essential economic development on the science park in Cambridge is not hindered by the lack of an alternative transport option.

9.56 pm
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate, and congratulate him on the lucid way in which he has described the problems of the A14 and on his good fortune in choosing a day when we have been able to have a slightly longer than usual Adjournment debate. The extra time has allowed the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and me to contribute to the debate—I hope that is valuable.

The stretch of the A14 to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred was in my constituency until the boundary changes prior to the general election, so I have witnessed the continuing increase in traffic and the worsening situation. It is perhaps surprising to people who spend most of their time in or around London to learn that I believe the A14 can get as bad as the M25 on a bad day and the traffic on that stretch can be absolutely awful. As my hon. Friend said, many people who wish to use it now have to build in a lot of extra time to compensate for those delays.

I would make one point about the delays. As a user of that road and other two-lane dual carriageways, it seems to me that whatever the theoretical capacity of a road, there is a tendency for almost everyone to drive on the outside lane. The reason for that is usually heavy goods vehicles, one trying to overtake another and both operating at the maximum allowed by the governor on their engines. They overtake imperceptibly slowly and sometimes even have to fall back eventually, with the result that huge queues of traffic build up behind them—leaving the inside lane almost entirely empty. Any theoretical capacity is thus completely destroyed. Perhaps the Minister could attempt to find a way in which that could be addressed as there would be a greater throughput of traffic if both lanes were used properly.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Minister, knows full well the importance of the A14. Indeed he used to work in a company in my constituency and has experienced the same problems as my constituents.

I have consistently supported the opening up of the railway line from Cambridge to St. Ives. It is an existing link, all bar three miles at one end. Under the previous Government, at my invitation a former Minister of rail, now Lord Freeman, came to meetings with Cambridge county council, Railtrack, the Railway Development Society and all the other organisations and even walked part of the track to see how that railway could play its part in assisting with traffic movement. It had the particular advantage of running close to the science park to which the hon. Lady referred and the Cambridge regional college which thousands of students attend daily. Sadly, that initiative died away because Railtrack could not be enthused about the idea.

Disagreements about cost have also come to the fore. Even if my dearest wish came true and the line was opened—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Paice

Even the reopening of the railway line would not make the dramatic improvement that we want. The hon. Member for Cambridge—I do not say this in a partisan spirit—is living in cloud cuckoo land if she believes that public transport could solve the problems of the A14, although it would make a contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said, the A14 must continue to be a vital link in the nation's arteries.

Mrs. Anne Campbell

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice

I would rather not, as I know that the Minister wants a good amount of time, although I may give way in a moment.

I entirely endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire that we should not wait three syears for the study. The hon. Member for Cambridge wrongly said that the previous Government removed the A 14 from the programme of improvements. The previous Government removed from the programme only the section of the road between the M11 and the A10, which forms part of the Cambridge northern bypass in my constituency. My hon. Friend was referring to the section between Cambridge and Huntingdon, which was removed from the programme by the current Government. Now that I have corrected the hon. Lady, I happily give way.

Mrs. Campbell

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was arguing for an earlier study. I did not say that greater use of public transport would substantially reduce the amount of traffic on the A14, although I do believe that a study is needed to determine whether that would be the case.

Mr. Paice

A study certainly is needed more urgently than the Minister has suggested in answers to parliamentary questions.

A significant length of the A 14 remains within my constituency; it stretches almost from the Girton interchange with the M 11 to the Suffolk border. As I acknowledged, the previous Government removed from the improvement programme a section of the Cambridge. northern bypass. That decision was partly influenced by the public inquiry at the time into an application to build a superstore on the northern fringe of Cambridge, and by the possibility that that superstore would contribute to the improvement of the A14.

I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his decision to reject that application—that took a weight off the minds of many of my constituents in the villages of Histon and Impington. However, it also removed the possibility of any financial contribution to the improvement of the northern bypass, where the traffic problems are almost as severe as they are between Cambridge and Huntingdon.

The problem affects not only road users, however. The northern bypass cuts close to much housing, so noise is also a serious problem. Despite the fact that my constituents in Histon and Impington and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire in Girton and further east in Bottisham have experienced a huge increase in the amount of traffic on the A14 since the opening of the A1-M1 link, nothing has been done about noise.

I have pursued the matter for some time. The problem goes back to 1972, when a public inquiry into the construction of the road recommended the erection of noise screens. We are still waiting for those screens. I have tried several times over the years to persuade the Minister's predecessors of both parties, and the Highways Agency, to take action. I keep being told that it cannot be done unless there is a new road. The fact is that the A14 is, effectively, a new road because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has said, it is now taking a vastly increased amount of traffic compared with what it was designed for in 1972. We then had the excuse that there would be a new shopping centre.

Later, the Minister told me to wait for the White Paper, which I did. However, there is still no real progress on how to address the serious problem of traffic noise affecting many of my constituents. How much longer will they have to wait for the screening which was promised in the 1972 public inquiry? I accept, as the Minister will point out, that my party has been in government for much of the period since then. But I still make the point— particularly as the Government have taken the further improvements out of the programme—that although the Minister asked me to wait for the White Paper, we still have had no answer to the problem of noise.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for allowing me to contribute, as we have a serious problem. We have a Minister responsible for roads, although it seems that the construction of roads is virtually disappearing at present. I hope that the Minister will consult her colleagues about how to address a major problem.

This is, as we have pointed out, a problem that faces all of us who live and work in and around the Cambridge area; but it also affects businesses all over the country that use that road. Some vehicles come down the east coast on the A1 from Scotland and wish to go through the Dartford tunnel, or to east London. Others go from Birmingham to Felixstowe port, accounting for a vast amount of HGV traffic using the road. The A14 is a major part of the nation's road system, so I hope that the Minister can encourage us in the belief that it will get better.

10.7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)

I begin my thanking the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for his seasonal greetings, which I reciprocate. I am in no position to know whether I have responded to the majority of Adjournment debates during this Session, but I am fairly confident that whoever holds that debatable prize is from my Department.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for his generosity in affording time to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). All three contributions have highlighted the problems over a wide range of areas caused by congestion on our roads network. The speeches touched on the impact of congestion upon our environment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge referred to the concerns of her constituents and the impact that congestion has on business—a point made also by the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire and for South-East Cambridgeshire.

The call for speed in tackling the problem came from all three hon. Members, who highlighted the desperate need for a strategic approach to transport and traffic. That is why the Government took the time we did over the roads review, and why we issued the first comprehensive transport document—the White Paper—for two decades. It is abundantly clear to everyone that we must move away from the old predict-and-provide system for roads, and we need a much more integrated approach to dealing with managing our roads system so that there can be a flow of traffic.

As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, we are talking about a road that links the country to many vital ports of both ingress and exit. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out that it is part of the national road network, and spoke of the trans-European links, reminding us that the road serves the national network, as well as being depended on by local residents.

It is abundantly clear that the old predict and provide is not a way of tackling our problems of traffic and transport, not only in the short and medium term but in the long term. There were recurring themes in all three speeches this evening, concerning accidents and congestion. All three urged speed on the part of the Government with regard to the multi-modal study promised to this section of road.

New unpublished Highways Agency work that has just been completed covering the years 1995–98 shows a rate of 0.17 personal injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres on the A14. That is the same as the national average. The severity ratio has dropped in those three years to below 18 per cent., which is three quarters of the national average. The accident record of the A14 is no worse than the national average for all-purpose dual-carriageway roads.

I know that that is of absolutely no comfort to anyone who has suffered, or fears suffering, an accident. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the tragedy of a fatal accident. The Highways Agency has plans to improve safety on the route. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, traffic flows on the Cambridgeshire section are the highest on the route, and the proportion of heavy goods vehicles is twice the national average. We share the concerns about safety.

In 1995, the Highways Agency commissioned a study from consulting engineers Thorburn Coiquhoun to investigate accidents and congestion on this length of the A14 and propose safety measures. The first stage of the safety improvements was carried out in 1995–96, when speed cameras were provided to help to reduce traffic speeds.

Further safety-related measures to be carried out by next spring include various junction improvements, with small-scale widening, improved signing with advisory speed limits, and the laying of anti-skid surfacing at off-slip roads. An acceleration lane is being constructed on the eastbound carriageway of the Hemingford Abbots junction. Signing and lining improvements are being provided in the Girton interchange to improve lane discipline and the flow of traffic. Queue warning signs will be provided on the Cambridge northern bypass, and work is being done to identify further safety improvements.

A programme of improvements to the lay-bys is planned for next year, as the accident study showed that many accidents were associated with lay-bys. Investment in better information for drivers is also planned. West of Huntingdon and the A1, schemes are being prepared to change four existing single-level junctions between Thrapston and Brampton to grade-separated junctions. The Highways Agency has just reached agreement with Cambridgeshire police on the provision of additional speed cameras, to be funded by the agency, to supplement the two already on the A14 at Lolworth and Hemingford Grey. Those new units will be erected by the spring.

As part of its brief for improving the planning of highway investment and improving services, and in support of the Government's integrated transport and land use planning policies, the Highways Agency has embarked on a series of route management strategy trials to examine routes from various operational standpoints. The whole of the A14, from the M1-M6 to Felixstowe, is one of those trial routes.

The trial began in April 1998, and is due to conclude in April 1999. It is being taken forward in partnership with local authorities, the police, other transport providers along the route corridor, road users and environmental interest groups. We expect the results to point to further measures to improve traffic management, network control and information for drivers. The agency now has a toolkit of measures that it can use, and it is operating as part of our framework for integrated transport.

Before I move on from those short-term improvements to the longer-term future for the A14 in Cambridgeshire, I want to look back briefly to the past. Under the 1989 "roads for prosperity" initiative, improvements were proposed from west of the A1 through to widening of the Cambridge northern bypass. Although consultants did a great deal of preliminary work on the schemes, little serious progress was made. None of them even reached the first major stage of scheme preparation where the public are consulted on alternative alignments.

That is a sign that major change to the A14 in Cambridgeshire is not a straightforward proposition. There are very substantial environmental and technical issues, particularly around Huntingdon, the M11 and north of Cambridge. Successive reductions in the programme 'reduced the scheme from motorway to all-purpose trunk road standard, and finally, in 1996, the scheme for widening the A14 Cambridge northern bypass from the M11 to the A10 was withdrawn entirely.

On the A14 in Cambridgeshire, we therefore inherited proposals for grade-separated junctions west of the A1, and major schemes east of the A1, costing around £200 million, which had been withdrawn or shelved. We consulted widely on our proposals for integrated transport and the roads review, and produced our policy statements in July and a seven-year targeted programme of improvements—TPI—for trunk roads. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked whether we had applied our five new criteria to the A14 before we withdrew it from the targeted programme of improvements, and I can assure him that we did so.

Mr. Lansley

The application of the criteria for those roads included in the TPI has been published. Will the Minister undertake to publish the judgments made by the Highways Agency on the A14, so that we may consider, and if necessary challenge, them, because they are often qualitative?

Ms Jackson

I should be happy to do that, but I understood from what the hon. Gentleman said, and the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, that speed was of the essence. I cannot see what purpose would be served by asking anyone to refer back to a decision that had already been made, when what I have heard tonight is that the hon. Members wish to urge the Government to make progress on the issue.

I am sure that all hon. Members agree that it is not possible to achieve the desired result overnight. Any solution will take time. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has argued tonight that the Government's multi-modal study proposal should be not in the second tranche of such studies but in the first. I shall come to that proposition later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman now seems to be arguing that we should go back and attempt to unpick a decision that has already been made. He implied that the decision was somehow rushed, or that the road was not tested against the criteria against which all other roads have been tested, but that is not the case.

Mr. Lansley

I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the purpose of publishing the criteria, the application of which could be instrumental in how the multi-modal study is constructed. Some work on the study could be short-circuited, because, if it is apparent that, for example, the use of some modes of public transport or the environmental impact could be improved by upgrading the A14, we could move immediately towards some of the conclusions of the multi-modal study, instead of having to go through all the criteria ab initio.

Ms Jackson

I apologise if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but it seemed that the final sentence of his previous intervention suggested that the criteria could be challenged, and that led me to believe that he was asking to go back rather than forward.

The junction improvements between Thrapston and Brampton, west of the A1, will be taken forward as safety schemes. However, the major schemes east of the A1, which are of most concern to the hon. Gentleman, were not sufficiently well advanced to be contenders for the targeted programme of improvements. Major road projects on the scale being considered are bound to require the full process of public consultation, preferred route selection, statutory orders and a public inquiry before going ahead. Those processes all take time.

As I have said in a slightly different way, we want to move away from a piecemeal approach to transport investment, and to find long-term solutions. The old approach of simply trying to build our way out of problems on our roads is discredited, and we need to consider the role that modes such as public transport can play, as the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said.

Those hon. Members, and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), have spoken of the potential of a railway line between Cambridge and St. Ives. We have announced, as part of the outcome of the roads review, a programme of studies to consider the most urgent problems not tackled by the targeted programme of improvements. One will be a multi-modal study of the Cambridge-Huntingdon corridor.

The multi-modal studies will examine the contribution that all modes can make to tackling transport problems, while supporting regional strategies for land use and economic development over the coming decades. We will thus consider the A14 from Cambridge to the A1 in the round, taking into account not only road aspects and options but rail possibilities and bus proposals. We have no preconceptions about the likely range of measures that could emerge from the study. We intend to produce solutions that consider all the problems and all the options, and we are not going to be dictated to by pressure to keep pace with traffic growth by building more and more roads.

In taking the studies forward, we intend to consult widely, and to involve a range of interests, so that, as far as possible, there is ownership and support for the solutions that emerge. Each study will have a steering group, chaired initially by Government offices for the regions, and including the regional planning bodies, regional development agencies, the Highways Agency, transport providers and users, and environmental organisations.

Mr. Lansley

Will the hon. Lady consider consulting not only the regional planning conference, but Cambridgeshire county council? The section of road to which she refers is in Cambridgeshire, and it is the competent body. I hope that she will give the council a greater status and role in consultation on the study.

Ms Jackson

It would be highly unlikely for Cambridgeshire county council not to be represented on one of, if not all, the bodies to which I referred. Clearly, there must also be consultation with the users, and with environmental organisations.

The results of the studies will be considered by regional planning bodies as part of the regional transport strategy that will in future be an integral part of regional planning guidance. When my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister signs up to a regional transport strategy, he will be showing that the Government endorse the investment priorities in the strategy.

As to the timing of these studies, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety announced in another place last Thursday the programme for the targeted programme of improvements and the proposals for taking the studies forward. Regional planning conferences are being asked for their views on the coverage of the study programme, and the timing and scope of the studies. We are seeking replies by 29 January, and will decide the final programme quickly after we receive all the views from the regions.

We propose to take forward a programme of about 26 studies in total. Those are major, resource-intensive pieces of work, so it will not be possible to take them all forward in parallel. The smaller studies, such as the Cambridge-to-Huntingdon A14 road—which, although complex in the considerations that need to be taken into account, is simple in that it deals with only one corridor route—would probably begin, in a second tranche, in 2000 or soon after. However, we shall be happy to consider alternative timetables put forward by the regional planning bodies. I know that that stretch of road is a priority for the regional bodies.

Our approach to the trunk road programme is a realistic one. Unlike the previous Administration, we shall not produce a wish list, or attempt far more projects than can be delivered. We have heard tonight in the contributions from Cambridgeshire Members a graphic illustration of that approach.

We have defined a new role for the Highways Agency as network operator, giving greater emphasis to encouraging the best use of the network. With the agency's recently established structure of area managers, it is well organised to maintain the network and develop essential safety schemes in the shorter term. Our studies will lead to effective longer-term transport solutions that are both affordable and deliverable. We shall put making better use of existing transport infrastructure, supporting public transport and managing demand before new construction.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and the other hon. Members who have spoken for bringing the A 14 in Cambridgeshire to the attention of the House. It is an important matter, with wide implications not only for the immediate area, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. I shall ensure that my noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety is made aware of this evening's debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.