§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
7.13 pm§ Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall)I welcome the opportunity to raise in the House an issue that has been on and off the agenda for many of my constituents for the past 15 years. A little background history might be appropriate.
Saltash, in my constituency, which is also where I live, is an ancient borough that was a thriving community before Plymouth was even a collection of a few villages. It always depended on transport links, principally across the Tamar from Cornwall into England. Transport issues have therefore been important over the years. Saltash has become, almost, the mecca of civil engineering projects. We have the famous Brunel Royal Albert bridge, which introduced the railways into Cornwall. In more recent times, the Tamar road bridge was constructed, which was one of the first box girder bridges, and it has recently had additional lanes clipped on to the sides—an ingenious civil engineering project. We also have the Saltash tunnel, which is the subject of the debate tonight.
The Saltash tunnel is a three-lane tunnel—the only three-lane tunnel in Europe, I believe—because we have a three-lane bridge. When the proposal for a tunnel was first mooted, it did not receive universal acclaim, partly because of all the disruption, and partly because people did not want more transport coming through the ancient borough of Saltash. However, it was considered preferable to another bridge, so after a public inquiry it was decided that we would have a tunnel. There were public meetings at the time, and I recall one meeting at the guildhall at Saltash when the proposed contractors and designers of the tunnel came to tell us what would happen.
I distinctly recall someone in the audience at that meeting getting up and advising the contractors that she had lived in Fore street, Saltash, close to the proposed tunnel site, and that at the bottom of her garden was a well, which never ran dry. Even in the severest droughts, water was always available. That was not surprising. We had houses with names like Well Park house, and we had springs. It was clear that there was a considerable amount of water. She warned the contractors that if they proposed to build a tunnel there, they would have to be very careful about the water. The lady was well into her 70s or 80s and had huge experience, but regrettably the contractors took little notice. It is a pity that they did not.
The subsequent construction was a monumental problem. During construction, I had the opportunity of visiting and walking through the site. It was hot, dark, wet and noisy—one of the worst environments in which to work—but the principal problem was the water. Water flowed through the tunnel at an alarming rate while the rock and shale were being drilled. It was clear that water would be a considerable problem. After some two and a half years the tunnel was constructed and traffic flowed through it, as well as the water, although that was behind a lining which, at that time, was very attractive. There was good lighting and fans to get rid of the exhaust fumes, and everything seemed satisfactory.
331 Before the tunnel was officially opened by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, cracks began to appear in the lining only months after completion. Although the cracks were not problematic to begin with, water soon began to seep through them—not clean water, of course, but extremely dirty water, so the appearance of the tunnel gradually deteriorated. At that time, many of my constituents began to fear that the lining was going to collapse and that they were risking life and limb by going through the tunnel. Over a number of years, that has been shown comprehensively to be false; the structural integrity of the tunnel, which is almost a quarter of a mile long, is not in question.
I believe that the tunnel is structurally sound, but it looks very bad cosmetically. Despite continual washing down in the night in an effort to make it look better, it has, regrettably, not been a particularly good example of tunnel building. Neither is it a very good gateway into Cornwall, bearing in mind the fact that it is situated only a few hundred metres from the boundary. An awful lot people coming into Cornwall get a very nice first impression when they cross the Tamar bridge and look at the beautiful river, but many plunge into what must be one of the worst tunnels in the country, whose interior now resembles crazy paving.
As I said, the problem was first seen many years ago. When I served on the town and district councils, much correspondence took place between local councils, individual councillors, the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency to try to get to the bottom of the problems. Partly, they wanted the work to be redone in order to make the tunnel look right and to allay any more fears about its structural integrity. Principally, however, they wanted to deal with the fact that the tunnel was professionally designed and constructed, but began to demonstrate severe defects within a matter of months. That process went on for some years. I was involved in trying to get to the bottom of the matter, but nothing very much happened. We were fobbed off, no answers were forthcoming and the tunnel became progressively worse.
We are all grateful that a scheme has recently been proposed for relining the tunnel. It will have an attractive new inside skin to obscure the dismal-looking existing lining and we will have a nice and attractive entrance to Cornwall. Everyone is very pleased that that is happening, but many people are beginning to ask why it was not done many years ago. The issue has also raised in people's minds a number of other questions that I should like to put to the Minister. He may not be able to answer all of them, but if he cannot do so, perhaps he can write to me.
My first question is in the minds of many people who were living in Saltash and close by at the time of the tunnel's construction. Following the public inquiry, which involved much discussion and local knowledge about the wells, springs and other water, why did not the Highways Agency, design engineers and contractors take at least some time to think about the issue, instead of going blindly on? Was their knowledge so advanced that they could dismiss any local experience and knowledge?
Secondly, when construction had commenced and water was seen pouring through the tunnel—we are talking not about modest dampness, but about significant streams of water—why did not somebody 332 have a rethink and say, "This is an extraordinary amount of water; have we really taken proper precautions to make certain that it will be properly channelled away when construction has finished?"
Thirdly, when the tunnel was completed, but before it was officially opened, certain cracks appeared, as well as water pouring out. The problem was not as bad as it is now, but it was very noticeable. That happened very early on. Why were no reports requested about those defects? Why were no such reports commissioned and some sort of penalty clause invoked with the contractors? Surely, there must have been some sort of arrangement to ensure that if the tunnel, which cost quite a few million pounds, was defective in any way, it would be put right by those who designed or built it. Why, given that local councillors had raised those issues time and again over the years, was nothing done? Why did the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency merely dismiss everything and keep on saying that the tunnel was perfectly satisfactory in terms of its structural integrity, which no one doubted, and do nothing about the appalling cosmetic look of it?
Why is the report that was commissioned prior to the work being undertaken being kept so secret? I have asked to look at it, as the Minister knows. I understand that some of its contents may not be very helpful to the author and may provoke other action. However, we would be grateful for anything that can help us to understand why we are now in a position, 11 or 12 years later, of being forced to spend a considerable amount more taxpayers' money to rectify something that was apparent very early on when the tunnel was completed. Many of my constituents who have been close to this situation for some time find the whole affair very unsatisfactory.
Over the past 15 years, yes, we have got our tunnel, and yes, we have got an awful lot of traffic through it, but we have seen it progressively deteriorate before our eyes. We have felt ashamed of its condition when we welcomed people into Cornwall. Those people think of Saltash as the place with the dirty and cracked tunnel—not exactly the most endearing sight for people coming to spend their money in Cornwall. Many people in my town believe that although the work that is now being undertaken is extremely welcome—I emphasise that—it should nevertheless have been done some time ago and should not be at the expense of existing taxpayers, but charged to the original designers or the original contractors.
I accept that the tunnel is one of the civil engineering wonders of the world in that it is a three-lane tunnel. Most tunnels are either single-lane or double-lane. Its method of construction may at the time have been leading-edge technology, but we have leading-edge technology in the Royal Albert bridge, which is still standing. Although it is more than 100 years old, it still takes thunderous great trains across it. It is looking perfectly okay and will hopefully go on for a long time to come. The Tamar bridge has its so-called Nippon clipons—additional lanes that were constructed in a very difficult environment. They look right and seem to operate well. A tunnel would not seem to be in the same sort of league, yet for more than a decade we have 333 suffered from its inferior construction, and we are now being asked to pay for something that should already have been done by and charged to the contractors.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing the debate and on the forceful way in which he made his points on behalf of his constituents. I shall gloss over some of his earlier comments about Saltash being the gateway to England. Of course, it is a fine old settlement, as we know, but—if I may tease him gently—his constituents move over the river into Devonport, my constituency, to find employment, as well as to do their shopping. He is right that Saltash is a fine town, and I am sure that he is very proud to represent it.
I shall start with some historical information to explain what lies behind the works that are being undertaken in the tunnel. Such was the Government's concern following the European tunnel disasters that the Prime Minister required that all United Kingdom tunnels should be assessed to ensure that fire, or a similar serious accident, would not lead to such loss of life and disruption. There were clearly lessons to be learned from the disasters. They included the need for modern and robust environmental control, television monitoring and smoke and firefighting methods. A review of fan and water control also took place.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Saltash tunnel is a single-bore, three-lane tunnel situated on the A38 trunk road below Saltash in Cornwall. It is approximately 410 m long and includes a 346 m bored tunnel section with an unreinforced concrete permanent lining. The Highways Agency is responsible for operating the A38 trunk road and the tunnel, maintaining them in good condition and carrying out any improvements.
Mott, Hay and Anderson—now Mott MacDonald—designed the tunnel and Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd. built it. It was opened to traffic in 1987. Its length exceeded 400 m, and Saltash was clearly a tunnel to be taken seriously. It is the only single-bore tunnel on the trunk road network and it also operates a tidal flow traffic management system. That permits two lanes for the morning Plymouth-bound traffic—all the people who leave Cornwall and come into Devon—and one lane against that flow for the out-bound traffic. That is switched after the morning peak flow for the rest of the day and during the night.
The tidal flow system operates in tandem with the newly widened Tamar bridge, which Cornwall county council and Plymouth city council own and manage jointly. The electronics and signs create additional maintenance problems in the confines of the single bore. Modern, state-of-the-art monitoring equipment is included in the current works to replace the 15-year-old, out-of-date systems that have become unreliable and expensive to maintain.
334 The Highways Agency is aware of the cracks in the tunnel walls. As the hon. Gentleman said, seepage of water through the concrete lining has caused unsightly staining, emphasised the cracking and led to public concern about the structural adequacy of the tunnel.
§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)As the Minister knows, I use the tunnel regularly. Sometimes I have the misfortune to have to leave Cornwall and cross the border into his constituency in England. I hope that he will assure us that, although the tunnel will look much better cosmetically, there will be no further deterioration in the tunnel's structural integrity, which we will not be able to see because of the new lining. That is critical.
§ Mr. JamiesonThe hon. Gentleman has pre-empted my comments. The tunnel was constructed to last more than 100 years and the structure is intact and in good condition.
When the tunnel was designed, knowledge and technology was not as good as it is today. There was little experience of building such a tunnel. At the time, it was leading edge technology. It was built to the specifications of the Department of Transport, and although it was known that it would crack, neither the designers nor the Department anticipated the number of cracks that appeared and the amount of water that poured through. However, that is history.
The hon. Gentleman made specific points about the designers not taking note of local experience. I cannot comment on that because it happened more than 20 years ago. If voices had been heard, perhaps the tunnel would have been designed differently. However, if it had been designed to be totally watertight, the cost could have been so enormous that it prohibited construction. It was built to a budget and to serve a purpose.
No one doubts that the tunnel provides a useful bypass of the old Saltash town centre. When holiday traffic drove through in July, August and September, it clogged up that side of Plymouth and, of course, Saltash. The tunnel has been a valuable asset to the road network.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the technology at the time. It was perceived to be adequate, but the tunnel has subsequently leaked. However, the problem is cosmetic, not structural, and we now have to solve it. The tunnel is not falling apart.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether penalties should be imposed because of the cracks. The difficulty with that is that the tunnel was designed to specifications set out by the then Department of Transport, and it would be very difficult to show at law who was responsible. That is probably why it was decided not to take any further action at that time. He also mentioned a secret report. He has seen two very comprehensive reports on the tunnel, and I have to say to him that if I wanted to know anything about the state of the tunnel, I would refer to those reports. There is another report—which is largely an opinion—but I do not think that it would be helpful in the present situation. If it came into the public domain, it would certainly not help his constituents. I have seen it, and it would not take us any further forward in solving the problem that we now face.
Some 340 m of the total 410 m of permanent tunnel lining is made from unreinforced concrete, and shrinkage cracks began to appear shortly after 335 completion. Attempts to seal the cracks at that time were unsuccessful, and further cracks developed. Before proceeding with a refurbishment contract, the Highways Agency sought a second opinion on the tunnel's structural integrity. That resulted in the report from the Dr. G. Sauer Company, an international firm of tunnelling consultants, which was commissioned by the Highways Agency in June 1998 to assess the structural adequacy of the tunnel in its cracked state. A two-volume assessment report was submitted in March 2000—this is the report that the hon. Gentleman has seen, and I have to assure him that it will tell him everything that he needs to know—which concluded that the concrete lining should be structurally adequate for the design life of the tunnel. As I said, it was designed to have a life of nearly 100 years, and there is no question but that its integrity is good.
The report also confirmed that the leakage was a cosmetic problem, and identified appropriate refurbishments—some of which were necessary purely because of the age of the tunnel, and the normal wear and tear—and modernisation. In the assessment report is a statement, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in previous correspondence, indicating that a separate report existed. That is the one that he calls the "secret" report. I can assure him that that confidential report will not take us any further forward.
In accordance with the Prime Minister's directive following the European tunnel disasters, and having accepted that the reports from the Dr. G. Sauer Company confirmed the structural integrity of the gunnel, the Highways Agency's work has concentrated on modernisation. It is important that we now look at the way forward. We could look back, and we could perhaps apportion blame, but I am not sure that that would be terribly helpful in the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman needs to know whether the tunnel is going to be fit for the purpose for which it was designed, and whether it will get holidaymakers and people travelling to work to and from their destinations. He also needs to know whether, as the gateway to Cornwall, it is going to look good. That is important in terms of people's perception of Cornwall—and of Devon, for that matter.
With a view to reducing the energy costs of lighting and the costs of cleaning, a specification for a high-standard lining has been produced. That will have the added advantage of covering up the unsightly staining while permitting easy access for the general and principal inspections that the agency carries out on all its structures from time to time. The maintenance service building at the western portal has been extended to cater for current health and safety requirements. The new lighting and ventilation fans will be positioned with a view to easier and cheaper maintenance. Drainage, both behind the tunnel walls and in the carriageway, will be upgraded.
Given the increased traffic volumes since construction, the current speed limit of 30 mph, introduced for the refurbishment contract, will be maintained to regularise traffic speed for the whole tidal flow section across the Tamar bridge and the Saltash tunnel. The potential for a speed-related accident in the 336 confines of a tidal flow single-bore tunnel is very great. Speed camera coverage over the length of the tunnel requires special cameras at precise locations. We have new speed cameras using what is called the "specs" system—they look like a pair of spectacles—which will be installed as an additional safety measure. To enable the smooth passage of trunk road traffic along the county roads during the night-time closures of the tunnel that will enable the refurbishment to be carried out, diversion arrangements were put in place in advance of the main contract. They involved capacity improvements at some junctions, traffic light installation, traffic monitoring equipment and electronic signing. They cost about £1.8 million, an investment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency that I am sure he does not oppose.
Those diversion routes will be used whenever future cleaning and other maintenance works are required in the tunnel, as has been the case since its construction. The improvements should also help to cater for the increased traffic that has been a feature since 1987, and for all the people who are going to view the Eden project and the other fine things that Cornwall has to offer nowadays besides a bucket-and-spade holiday. We all welcome the increased traffic that we have already seen and will see again in the summer.
Current maintenance costs run to about £500,000 a year. The new main contractor will carry them until the refurbishment is complete. The total cost of the refurbishment is expected to be about £8 million. Skanska was awarded a contract to refurbish the tunnel following an Official Journal advertisement and competitive tender. Both Skanska and the engineering consultants Symonds, designers for the refurbishment, won the contracts following a quality and price tender assessment. Sadly, since the awarding of the contract the specialist lining contractor has gone out of business, and delays were incurred during the search for a suitable alternative specialist. Tubosider of Italy, the specialist firm used for the Mont Blanc tunnel cladding, has now been retained by Skanska.
The implications of the delay, and the need for a smooth traffic flow through the tunnel during the holiday season, have been discussed with Skanska, Symonds and the Highways Agency. As a result of the delay, the works will not be finished until September.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, with which I am familiar. It is important to his constituency, to Cornwall more generally, and to Devon. Now, however, we must look forward. We have made a substantial investment in the Saltash tunnel, as we have all along the route. He must welcome the new bypass at Dobwalls that we have announced. Indeed, his constituency is gaining many new features thanks to the Government's work in running a successful economy and investing in the infrastructure that we need so much.
I hope that once the works are finished and we have surmounted the problems associated with the original design, we shall have a tunnel fit for the 21st century.