HC Deb 18 December 2002 vol 396 cc262-84WH 10.59 am
Norman Baker (Lewes)

I welcome the opportunity to raise an issue of considerable importance to my constituents and to others who live along the south coast. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)—who seems to be the Minister with special responsibility for Westminster Hall. He will know that I spoke to his office yesterday to give him some indication of the issues that I wished to raise. I intend to approach this matter constructively; doubtless, the Minister will respond in similar vein.

I welcome the concept of multi-modal studies. They are a welcome innovation, introduced by the Government shortly after the election in 1997. The concept was that, rather than continuing to consider particular roads, it was sensible to consider transport corridors and examine what could be done with rail and bus developments, walking and cycling initiatives, and even short sea shipping—if I can say that without tripping over the words. The concept is sensible and the Government deserve credit for it. Unfortunately, the good intentions have been blown off course by events.

I want to focus on the south coast, which is a good area to consider. It was right for the Minister to consider it and it is welcome that the Government are paying attention to the transport situation there. The south coast corridor contains a combination of local transport movements; very few movements run from one end of the corridor to the other. The Government's multi-modal study is therefore a study of a combination of little areas of transport movement. Nevertheless, it is welcome.

Halcrow is the consultancy company that has been appointed for the study. That surprised me, because the company is clearly doing work for other organisations. Most notably, it has recently done work for the RAC, for which it produced plans to build lots more roads—which was doubtless what the RAC wanted. I wonder whether there is a slight conflict between Halcrow's work for private companies and its work in the public interest, such as this study.

My worst fears have been borne out by the report that Halcrow has produced. It comprises 80 pages, of which only four are on bus and rail. Virtually none of the report is on cycling or walking. Of the £1.1 billion that has been allocated, I calculate that around 54 per cent. is allocated to road building with only 2 per cent. allocated to buses. Even worse—I want to raise this general point with the Minister—the difficulty with all multi-modal schemes, which are desirable in theory, is that the road elements tend to be progressed whereas the other elements are treated differently. Traditionally, the Secretary of State for Transport stands up in the House of Commons and makes announcements on the building of bypasses or stretches of road, and is then able to deliver. However, rail schemes are not delivered in the same way. I have never understood why Transport Ministers cannot stand up in the House of Commons and say, "I will deliver this rail scheme." They should announce rail projects in the same way as they announce road projects; but, instead, rail schemes are shunted off to the Strategic Rail Authority, on which the Government rely to deliver rail schemes.

The SRA is reporting to the Government that it wants to cut the number of trains in use, that it cannot deliver services, and that it is therefore prioritising. Consequently, many rail schemes that are recommended in multi-modal studies—including schemes in the south coast study—will not be progressed. Even Halcrow said, as did the local community, that there was a strong case for the electrification of the Hastings-Ashford line, which is the only diesel link along the south coast. The ludicrous situation arises that it takes me longer to travel by train from Lewes in East Sussex to Ashford, in the neighbouring county of Kent, than it does to get from Ashford to Brussels by train, including the need to change at Hastings because there is no electrification. That situation, which everyone thinks should be rectified, will continue.

No electrification is proposed for Uckfield-Oxted, although that has been in the plans since the 1980s. In fact, that was in British Rail plans. The Polegate-Pevensey loop, which Halcrow was keen to progress, will not happen because the Strategic Rail Authority does not regard that as a priority. Most culpably, there are no plans to reopen the Lewes-Uckfield line. That plan is supported by not only hon. Members from all parties, including the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), with whom I am working closely, but all the local councils, including Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour in Brighton and Hove. Virtually no one is opposed to it, the costs are modest, and yet it will not feature.

On the Halcrow study, the Council for the Protection of Rural England commented that it was extremely disappointed at the limp approach taken to the issue of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. The rail passengers committee for southern England and its chairman, the excellent Wendy Toms, have raised real issues about SRA estimates for the electrification of Kent and Sussex lines, alleging that at £154 million those were five times too high. Whether or not that is five times too high, the key point is this: the road schemes that the Government wish to progress will progress. Rail schemes, cycling, walking and buses, are all dependent on external bodies, for example, the SRA or the county council, and those might not progress.

In the Government's implicit hierarchy for transport in the multi-modal studies, road building is a last resort. I think that that is right. Similarly, there is a waste hierarchy in which landfill is last. It seems right that the transport hierarchy puts road building last, but that is not going to happen in this case. In fact, because of the arrangements with the SRA, among other things, road building is first. It is, therefore, more likely that the road schemes that are recommended in the multi-modal study would go ahead, rather than other transport measures. That cannot be what the Government intend. I give the Government credit for wanting an integrated transport policy—I believe that that is still their policy. If it is, what will the Government do to ensure that there is progress on the non-road proposals in such studies, and in this one in particular? Will they ensure that such proposals progress in the right order, before road improvements?

The CPRE recommended that the transport hierarchy should apply and quoted the Government's own 1998 transport White Paper, which said: Since new roads can lead to more traffic, adding to the problem not reducing it, all plausible options need to be considered before a new road is built. Those are the Government's own words, with which I entirely agree. Because of the way in which the situation is turning out, that will not be delivered. The timetable of events is worrying.

The environmental impact of road building is also a problem, not least in my constituency, which is in an environmentally sensitive area in a new national park. The Government are pleased to have created a national park, and yet it seems that one of the first things they will do is to approve an environmentally destructive road scheme that runs right through it. There seems little point in creating a national park if that is to be done with it.

The Halcrow study pays lip service only to the positive and practical measures that could be taken on so-called soft measures, although it recognises that those have a role to play. Where are the measures to secure travel plans so that car sharing takes place? Where are the measures that would push public sector employees—many work in Lewes—into adopting such travel plans? What are the Government doing about the 51 per cent. of car journeys in the area that are made simply to take children to school or to access local work? What are the Government doing about so many people driving alone in their cars? My colleagues and I in the Lewes area conducted a survey of traffic going into Lewes off the A27-the road in the multi-modal study. We found that 91 per cent. of cars that entered Lewes from the east had only one person inside. There is clearly an opportunity to encourage car sharing to reduce the number of cars, yet the multi-modal study says virtually nothing about that.

More importantly, there is the question of pricing. The Government talk about road pricing, but I want to talk about transport pricing. A parliamentary answer that I secured from the Minister on 20 November demonstrated that the cost of travelling by car—including purchase, maintenance, fuel, tax and insurance—had, from a base of 100 in 1974, dropped to 98.7 in 2001. It had also dropped over the period of the current Government. The cost of travelling by rail had risen from a base of 100 in 1974 to 185.3 in 2001—it had virtually doubled in real terms. The cost of bus travel over the same period had risen from 100 to 166.1. The cost of both public transport options had increased in real terms under Labour, whereas the cost of travelling by car had dropped.

Surely the Minister accepts that the price that people pay to get from A to B has an impact and affects which mode of transport they choose. The Government must take action to secure lower bus and train fares rather than simply saying, "That is a matter for train operators and private sector bus companies," because the consequence is that people are forced off public transport and on to the roads, which is the exact opposite of what the Government say they want to achieve.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)

Just so that we do not lose this point, will the hon. Gentleman say whether his party would increase the cost of motoring?

Norman Baker

I will wait for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) to speak on party policy: I am here as a local Member of Parliament. I do not wish to be distracted. I want to be constructive and to raise constituency issues rather than to speak on transport policy for my party. I am sure that my hon. Friend will pick up the point. There is a long answer that I could give the Minister, but I do not wish to be driven down that track at this point.

I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will address the issues that I have raised about the relative increases in rail and bus fares compared to the cost of motoring. He may know that I have managed to persuade the train operator South Central to decrease by roughly a third the cost of season tickets from the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) into Lewes and from Seaford in my constituency into Lewes. South Central tells me that that has led to a significant increase in the number of passengers buying tickets and the cost of the initiative is now covered through increased passenger use.

The scope for such schemes is enormous. The Minister will know that soft measures such as mine that break even can be far more cost-effective than environmentally damaging road schemes that have multi-million pound costs. I would have liked Halcrow to pay more attention to such schemes.

The Minister will also know that 63 per cent. of local journeys in the study area take place in the Eastbourne, Brighton, Gatwick triangle, where there is train capacity. Yet Halcrow has made no effort to identify how that capacity can be accessed. I am afraid that Halcrow has produced a road-building charter, with a coat covering it that reads "integrated transport". I do not believe that that is what the Government want, but it is what they have got from Halcrow in this study.

The study is also flawed in other ways because it makes assumptions about the economy. For example, it says that the Wilmington bypass will improve access to priority regeneration areas in East Sussex", but what does that mean? The report of the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment produced by the Conservative Government showed that there was no inevitable connection between improved road networks and economic vitality. SACTRA demonstrated that the impact depended on the various factors surrounding that road improvement. A new road to Gatwick, which is already strong, might well result in jobs being sucked into the area. However, a new road to a weak area might lead to jobs being sucked away from it. That naive and foolish connection between new roads and economic prosperity needs to be challenged. The Government have accepted, through the work of the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment, that there is not such a connection, but here we are with the old fables being repeated by Halcrow.

Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)

I should like to bring the hon. Gentleman on to specifics. What, if anything, would he do about the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, and indeed about the Beddingham bottleneck—where both rail and road use the same junction?

Norman Baker

That is an important matter, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall come to that point in the course of my remarks.

I have mentioned the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment, but even if one accepts—as I do not—that the new bypass will improve regeneration, one must ask where it will improve it. The answer is that it will open up a big parcel of land at Polegate in my constituency. That will lead to business development. I suggest that a consequence of that might be to take business opportunities away from Newhaven—which I hope that the Government support, as a port—and away from Hastings. There would be not a net increase in economic activity, but a reshuffling of it.

On congestion, the study is technically flawed. Congestion is a new word adopted by the Government, on which they are concentrating, although yesterday's statement was depressing for what it revealed about how congestion is developing. The study refers to congestion between two points and states that improvement of a road in a particular place will reduce congestion between those points—for example, Southerham and Beddingham. That may be true, but the Minister needs to understand that nobody actually travels from Southerham to Beddingham. People go from Eastbourne to Lewes or from Polegate to Lewes, or to Brighton, but they do not go to Southerham. No one goes there: it is a transit point. To be sensible, any assessment of whether congestion will be eased must take into account the access and destination points of any road journey—not just two arbitrary points on the road.

The Minister may know, if his officials have briefed him on the point, that anyone wanting access to Lewes from the A27 must go through a single-carriageway tunnel that joins the A26 at the other end. The Minister is nodding—I am glad that he has been briefed. The tunnel is at capacity. It already has traffic tailing back on to the A27 in the morning and into Lewes in the evening. No amount of improvement of the A27 will deal with that. When the Highways Agency was asked about the matter, it replied that it was not its problem because the road was the responsibility of the county council.

The county council cannot deal with it. There is no physical way to deal with the tunnel. By cutting congestion between Southerham and Beddingham the Minister will add to congestion in the tunnel. People travelling from Eastbourne to Lewes, or Seaford to Lewes, which are the real journeys, will have the same journey as before. Congestion point measurement does not work. It is surprising that Halcrow could fall for such an elementary mistake in its report.

The standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment also stated that when any new road is built or a road is improved, people begin to make longer journeys than they would otherwise have done and to go on journeys that previously they would not have made. They visit people whom they would not have visited; they take jobs that are further away. The spare road capacity that is created is filled up by extra journeys.

People making those extra journeys will also need to use the tunnel in Lewes. The idea that what is proposed will deal with congestion does not stack up.

In any case, Halcrow accepts in its assessment that the only real congestion is westbound in the morning between Lewes and Polegate, and says that a maximum of 11 minutes would be taken off that—I do not believe that it would be anything like that—with three minutes taken off the eastbound congestion. It proposes to deal with that congestion by means of a multi-million pound scheme.

I have concerns about the Southerham-Beddingham proposal to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred in his intervention, and more generally about the Lewes-Polegate road corridor. I say road corridor because a parallel railway runs from Lewes to Polegate, although Halcrow appears not to pay much attention to that in its so-called multi-modal study.

I am disappointed that the Southerham-Beddingham proposal has been rushed out in the past three or four weeks because, if the south coast multi-modal study means anything, it means a co-ordinated approach along the corridor, including due deliberation with relevant bodies and consideration of the impact of one scheme on the rest of the corridor. Instead, we are returning to the bad old days that we had under the previous Conservative Government of simply picking a road scheme and banging it in. That does not seem sensible.

There will be a so-called consultation exercise over Christmas, which will take place over two days in a village called Ringmer. Of course, Ringmer is not accessible by train and is nowhere near those affected directly by the A27 scheme. Consultation should have taken place in Lewes. It is unacceptable that there has been no proper consultation there. The Highways Agency merely said that it would carry out the consultation exercise in Ringmer, which mirrors what the south coast multi-modal study suggested about not having an exhibition in Lewes at all. It wanted one in Eastbourne and one somewhere else. It was only after I kicked up a huge fuss that one came to Lewes. When the exhibition was there, I was told that more constructive comments were made in Lewes than anywhere else. But the same problem arises in relation to this issue, with Lewes missed off the physical consultation map. I hope that the Minister will insist that that exhibition is brought to Lewes.

Why has the proposal been brought forward quickly? As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, there is concern about the level crossing at Beddingham. The railway inspectorate issued a statement suggesting that it is unhappy about the safety of the crossing. I do not underestimate that comment, which needs to be taken seriously. The Highways Agency alleges that there have been 25 safety incidents, as it calls them, at the crossing in the past four years.

The police figures for the same period suggest that there has been one serious and three slight accidents, which does not tally, unless the other safety incidents are people weaving and dodging round the half-barriers. Frankly, anyone who thinks that they can weave round a half-barrier when a train is in sight must want their head examined, but such incidents have happened. I have always stuck rigidly to the highway code instruction, which is that one should always give way to trains at level crossings. That has always struck me as good advice, but others have not always followed it.

That serious matter needs to be dealt with immediately. Some action has been taken. Along with others, I have asked for enforcement cameras, which have now been provided. I hope that notices will accompany them, warning any drivers who weave round the barriers that they will invariably be subject to severe prosecution. They are endangering not only their lives but those of train passengers. I have also suggested as a short-term measure the erection of solid barriers down the middle of the single carriageway either side of the crossing. That would physically prevent such weaving and dodging.

Those measures would deal with the immediate safety issues. The Highways Agency says that the way to deal with the problem is a double barrier that would mean 24 minutes delay per hour. However, it says that we cannot have that, so we must build a flyover. I have just made two suggestions—enforcement cameras and a solid barrier—that would deal with the safety problem of preventing dangerous behaviour. The railway inspectorate has now said that it is concerned about the matter because there is a suggestion in the south coast multi-modal study that the number of trains that go through the crossing will increase. The road schemes may go ahead, but I would be surprised if we had those extra trains, so ironically that may not occur in any case.

The scheme is proposed. I tell the hon. Member for Eastbourne that I do not rule out action either at that crossing or along the A27—I have always been prepared to see action along the A27. However, I am concerned about the scheme: the way that it has been introduced, its contents, and its environmental impact in particular. I am taking slightly longer than I would normally, because there appears to be a shortage of people who wish to contribute to the debate. I hope that you will let me wander on a bit more, Mr. McWilliam.

Halcrow accepts that the scheme would have adverse environmental effects on the landscape, and impose an increased flood risk. It does not recommend the tunnel, although many people have raised that issue with me. However, interestingly enough, in the work that it did with the RAC recently, Halcrow was busy recommending tunnels up and down the country, saying that they were one of the ways forward. Halcrow appears to be out of the line with the advice that it produced for its private sector client.

There are a number of serious worries associated with the scheme, in terms of the environmental impact. It is closest to option SB1, which was produced by Bullens, the consultants in 1993, which is when the issue was last considered. In discussing the option of an online improvement to upgrade junctions at Southerham and Reading—roughly the same as the scheme now under discussion—Bullens stated: The most damaging option to landscape and views by a substantial margin would be Option SB1. If Southerham Roundabout is upgraded in the future to become grade separated, the existing severe intrusion at Southerham would become even worse. The traffic would continue to cross the slope of Ranscombe Hill visible from the floodplain and Mount Caburn. The route would be raised on embankment across Glynde Reach causing high intrusion to the view from Mount Caburn. This option also encroaches on the SNCI at Beddingham Grazing Marsh. That is essentially the option now before us, produced by Halcrow. How can it be that the option that was discussed and dismissed as the worst possible option in 1993 is now before us for recommendation? It is a funny old world when that can happen in nine years.

I raised the matter with the Highways Agency. I asked why it was promoting the scheme, given the comments made in 1993. It said: The flood risk of the previous southern option swings the balance in favour of the northern route currently favoured even though the landscape impact is greater. Even the Highways Agency says that the option is not the best in terms of the landscape.

I hope that the Minister is familiar with the part of the world to which I am referring, although if he is not, he is welcome to visit my constituency. We would be delighted to see him there—I will show him the route of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line and he will find that Mount Caburn is a fantastically famous and wonderful landmark in Sussex. People love it, not for its height, but for its shape and how it fits into the landscape. It is in an open plain, in a delightful part of the world. People are genuinely concerned about the environmental implications of what is a crude embankment—a cut and paste job—stuck between two roundabouts to get over the level crossing. The South Downs and the national park, which the Minister and his colleagues have been keen to promote, deserve better than that.

I hope that I have demonstrated that there are serious concerns about the environmental implications at the junction. If there is to be a scheme, the one that is proposed is certainly not the best for the environment. It may be one of the cheapest, which is perhaps what has recommended it to the Government, but it is not the best. I also do not believe that it will reduce congestion time at all. It is important to deal with safety issues at Beddingham level crossing, and I have mentioned ways in which that can be done in the short term. In the long term, and in answer to the intervention from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the south coast multi-modal study should follow the hierarchy that the Government have set down. It should seriously consider and introduce other options. It should introduce cheaper rail fares and improve the bus network, and it should take some of the steps that the Government recommend. Once it has done that, it should follow the Government's advice and make roads the last option. If those methods—and soft measures, such as shared travel-towork arrangements—cannot resolve the safety and congestion problems on the road, it may be necessary to return to road schemes along the south coast.

However, we have not reached that point yet. Those involved in the study should go back to the drawing board, take on board the Government's advice and consider other options first. Most of my constituents would prefer those options to have been exhausted before we introduce an environmentally damaging road scheme. As Bullens said in 1993, the scheme would be the worst option. It would be built in a sensitive area of the South Downs, at significant cost to the taxpayer. Before that happens, let us look at the other options.

I hope that the Minister will do more than simply answer my questions. On a minute matter, I hope that he will ensure that the exhibition that did not take place in Lewes will now take place. More seriously, I hope that he will reaffirm the Government's commitment to an integrated transport policy and to studying other options, such as rail, bus and soft measures, rather than simply opting for environmentally damaging road schemes. I hope that he will remit his thoughts on the issue to those involved in the study so that they can do their work properly, as I believe he and his colleagues first intended.

11.31 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)

I commend the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. Like other colleagues, we have been trying to secure a debate on this important report, and it is splendid that we are discussing it today. The spirit of unanimity may wear a bit thin as my speech progresses, but I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the process involved in the south coast multi-modal study. That process is important, and I have made representations to the consultants, as, I am sure, has the hon. Gentleman and many of our constituents. It is a good process.

I part company with the hon. Gentleman, however, in that I think that SoCoMMS reaches a careful, well-argued and balanced set of conclusions. It has tried to strike a balance between environmental and social considerations on the one hand and economic considerations on the other. It has also tried to strike a balance between the needs of private and public transport. It has carefully examined all the cost-benefit analysis issues, and the cost-benefit analysis, certainly for the A27 scheme, is 2.8:1, which is encouraging.

The report is very long, and like the hon. Member for Lewes, I shall focus on a few specific issues. The report is brilliant news for everyone in my constituency and in the rest of East. Sussex. I shall deal with the proposed improvements to the A27 in more detail later, but I warmly welcome them, and it is gratifying that they will be given priority.

It is also right to welcome the proposal for more frequent rail services to and from my constituency. The plans for a possible new station at Stone Cross will benefit many of my constituents, particularly those who live in the Langney area.

There will also be better connections with Ashford, and the hon. Gentleman touched on that. If I want to go to Europe on the Eurostar, I often drive back up to London, because the road and rail connections between my constituency and Ashford are pitiful.

It is interesting that the report has attracted such widespread support. The regional assembly debated it the other day and was broadly in favour of it. I have also had a message of support from Anthony Dunnett, the chief executive of the South East England Development Agency, who says: The south Coast Multi Modal Study has received the full support of SEEDA as it takes a balanced approach to meeting the varied and pressing transport needs of the South Coast … Without these measures the South Coast cannot attract the vital investment that is needed to regenerate towns like Eastbourne, Hastings, Brighton and Littlehampton. Eastbourne borough council, which, incidentally, is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, has always adopted a cross-party approach to the A27. I have an e-mail from Mr. Norman Kinnish, director of planning, regeneration and amenities. He reminds me that we have been sending deputations to Westminster since the 1990s. He says that Eastbourne council supports an off line dual carriageway solution as the most effective method of resolving this road's problems … Both parties represented on Eastbourne Borough Council continue to commit their unwavering support for these improvements The leader of the Conservative group, councillor Graham Marsden, says: The economic progress of this area is being stifled by the lack of an effective transport infrastructure … The A27 is dangerous with too many drivers taking risks because of its frequent bends and dips. There is widespread support for the proposals. The Eastbourne and district chamber of commerce, which covers an area way beyond the boundaries of the borough of Eastbourne, says: It is vital for the economy of the whole area that improvements are made to the A27 as soon as possible. Although the cabinet of East Sussex county council has yet to formally debate the SoCoMMS report, it has long supported the campaign for significant improvements to the A27. In an e-mail to me, Mr. Bob Wilkins, director of transport and environment, makes several points, some of which have already been touched on by the hon. Member for Lewes, but others are slightly at odds with what the hon. Gentleman was saying.

There are two issues here. One is the issue of the A27 itself, and arguments have raged for years about how best to deal with the problems of congestion. The road is a major artery, certainly economically, and is extremely dangerous. There is also the problem of trying to find some division on the rail crossing that crosses the road at Beddingham, which, at times, is a nightmare. Fortunately I was not involved, but I heard on my car radio last Friday that there had been some sort of breakdown at the crossing and that traffic was stacked up for many miles in both directions.

Mr. Wilkins makes the point that the railway currently carries four trains an hour in each direction between Lewes and Eastbourne, causing a stoppage of about 12 minutes in every hour. He says that during the morning and evening peak periods, traffic builds up for five miles back from the crossing. That cannot be good news for the people who live in Selmeston and Berwick—

Norman Baker

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even if the crossing is bypassed, traffic will simply build up at the Southerham roundabout or in the tunnel into Lewes?

Mr. Waterson

Not necessarily. I would have thought that the SoCoMMS report would have taken that into account. On any view, there should be a significant improvement in the amount of traffic.

At the moment, the traffic flow amounts to almost 30,000 vehicles a day. The SoCoMMS report predicts that that will increase to 39,000 vehicles a day in the next 15 years. On any set of criteria applied by any Government, the road deserves to be a dual carriageway. The clinching issue—this was also touched on by the hon. Member for Lewes, although I think that he skirted around the solution—is the question of train frequency. Every silver lining has a cloud, and one of the benefits of privatisation, at least for my constituents, was that, instead of an hourly service from London to Eastbourne, a twice hourly service was introduced for much of the day. That means that more trains go through Beddingham and there are more stoppages on the road. As I said, at the moment, we have four trains an hour. According to the railway inspectorate, there will be a significant problem, possibly involving closure of up to 30 minutes an hour, because of what can only be described as a high risk of serious loss of life. The hon. Gentleman tried to minimise the risk slightly. One thing that I have discovered about fatalities on the roads is that the statistics collected by people such as the police are slightly unreliable. In any event, Mr. Wilkins says: If the barriers were to be changed"— presumably to make them more difficult to evade— the delays would increase to more than 30 minutes in every hour, causing unacceptable disruption to the road network.

Norman Baker

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Highways Agency estimates delays of 24 minutes, not 30 minutes per hour? Does he also accept that the figure would apply only if a double barrier were put in, not if the strategy that I suggest were adopted?

Mr. Waterson

We should certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I am not a technical man, as you will know, Mr. McWilliam, and if the time can be reduced, that is fine. Our starting point, however, is that there are enormous traffic flows, which are bound to increase, and stoppages of at least 12 minutes in every hour. We must address the existing problems before tackling the new problems that would be caused by a different sort of barrier and longer stoppages.

Mr. Wilkins goes on to say that SoCoMMS recommends an increase in rail frequency to 7 trains an hour between Lewes and Eastbourne We can all regard that as good news, and my constituents will be delighted. The hon. Member for Lewes was sceptical about whether that increase would ever come about, and I can see how that fits into his overall argument. We should perhaps be sceptical about such promises from any Government. My point, however, is that any increase would significantly add to delays.

There is a much more human level at which the A27 needs to be sorted out. Mr. Brian Stoodley, a leading local surgeon, who is based in Eastbourne, has been one of my strongest supporters over several years. He recently wrote to the leader of the Liberal Democrats to point out that the A27 was not only inefficient and slow but extremely dangerous. He noted that it carries over twice the traffic volume of an average 'A' road … It has over twice the morbidity and twice the mortality rate that one would expect of an equivalent road. To put it in more brutal terms, Mr. Stoodley and his colleagues have had to deal with the consequences of the dangers of the A27 over the years.

As long ago as 1996, Sussex ambulance service wrote to me to make it clear that it was in favour of better road connections in the area. There were problems dealing with patients after accidents because ambulances were unable to get around the area quickly.

Since being elected I have lobbied consistently on this issue. I took a deputation to see Conservative Ministers in 1995. Ultimately, the Conservative Government announced schemes to deal with bottlenecks on the A27. I was obviously very quick off the mark because in July 1997 I took a cross-party delegation from Eastbourne to press the case for road improvements with the new Minister with responsibility for roads. I have also secured several debates on the issue, including one in February 1996 and one in November 1997.

There is a massive consensus, certainly in my constituency, that the problem must be addressed. The problem of improving the A27 is linked to that of improving the rail crossing at Beddingham or replacing it with something more up to date.

Schemes were first mooted after the last world war, and after many years, the Polegate bypass and the new A22 route into my constituency were recently introduced. Both are already having a significant effect in drawing traffic from other parts of my constituency and elsewhere.

To be fair, the hon. Member for Lewes has a long and honourable track record on the issue, and I understand his reservations. If I may say so, however, he is being excessively gloomy and critical about the SoCoMMS report, which is closely argued. It is there for debate and, indeed, consultation.

I hope that this will not provoke a furious intervention, but the hon. Gentleman used to be an opponent of the Polegate bypass. He then came to see the benefits—

Norman Baker

rose

Mr. Waterson

At least let me finish the point—I knew that I should not have embarked on it. In time, the hon. Gentleman came to see the benefits of the Polegate bypass and, indeed, became one of its most enthusiastic supporters—so much so that one might have thought that it had been his idea. Perhaps the same process will occur in this instance.

Norman Baker

This is a good-humoured intervention, rather than a furious one. To put the record straight, I have always been in favour of a bypass for Polegate. I was not in favour of the dual carriageway bypass that was finally constructed. I have always recognised a difference between a bypass, which may have merit, and a new inter-urban road, which, in my view, is more difficult to justify.

Mr. Waterson

We can argue about the history, but the result is that we have the road, much later than we should have done, and it is, in my humble opinion, working.

Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he would announce a decision on SoCoMMS and, in particular, the A27 project. He told me, largely out of a fear of lawyers, which I can understand, being one myself, that he wanted to defer the decision to the spring and make a package of announcements. However, I should like to challenge the Minister to consider whether the decision can be brought forward. Whatever else is set out in SoCoMMS—and there is much detailed and interesting work affecting many other areas of the south—what cries out for attention is the need for improvements on the A27 and at Beddingham and the fact that the report concludes that those are a priority.

My constituents and other residents of Sussex have waited too long for those much-needed road improvements. They have the backing of the independent study and the regional assembly, as well as of people, businesses and business organisations in the area. They have the support of the relevant local authorities. Everyone knows in their heart of hearts—even, perhaps, the hon. Member for Lewes—that the status quo is not an option. Of course there must be consultation. The hon. Member for Lewes is right—I never thought those words would pass my lips, but he is right in describing the unique beauty of the area in question. Therefore, it is very important that we develop a scheme or schemes that are sensitive to the needs and concerns of people who live along a possible route for the improvements. I should not want anything to happen with which they would not be brought along, in a constructive and helpful fashion. There will always be those who oppose any new roads. Some people will never he persuaded, but we need to make a major effort.

The road is lethal and slow and is crippling economic development in our area. It is high time that this decision was made.

11.47 am
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. He has correctly identified the fact that the report is heavily weighted towards roads—I am afraid that that is also true of the other multi-modal studies. He has calculated that 54 per cent. of the £1.1 billion that has been identified will be spent on roads.

The question of balance is emerging in the Transport Committee's inquiry into multi-modal studies, which we are due to complete shortly. That is disappointing, because it is clear in the guidance relating to multi-modal studies that they are required to identify solutions that include a range of modes of transport, including walking and cycling. My hon. Friend explained his disappointment with the study, and rightly stressed the environmentally sensitive nature of his constituency.

Furthermore, my hon. Friend is right—again, I suspect that this is relevant to the other studies too—to express concern about the low priority that has been given to soft measures. Halcrow has, as he said, been soft on soft measures. Both my hon. Friend and the chairman of the Transport Committee have highlighted the drop in motoring costs and the increase in public transport costs. Let me take this opportunity to respond to the Minister's question. He knows the answer: the Government, after all, are in favour of congestion charges, and have identified the need for local authorities to introduce them—or are expecting local authorities to introduce them. He and I know that one of the effects will he increased costs for motorists. That is Government policy, and we support it: we believe that charging has a role to play in reducing congestion and raising revenue for public transport.

We also support measures that would reduce the costs of motoring for drivers who use the most environmentally friendly cars. Therefore, there would be gains as well as losses for motorists. However, it is wrong for public transport fares to be increasing significantly when motoring costs are reducing; that differential must move in the other direction. The Minister can make whatever use he wishes of that comment in the coming months and years.

Mr. Jamieson

I do not wish to lose sight of that important point. Other than the congestion charges—which, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, will probably be introduced in very limited areas—does his party support an increase in the costs of motoring?

Tom Brake

I have made it very clear that congestion charges—those in London, for instance—will have an impact on motorists, especially if there are incentives with regard to improved public transport. However, if congestion is not reduced, disincentives must also be introduced. I hope that the Minister will be able to use that remark.

The Minister has been invited to Lewes. If he accepts the invitation, he might wish to stop off in Carshalton on his way, because my constituents and I could show him some good examples of local transport improvements that I am sure that he would appreciate.

I disagree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). He said that the report was careful and well balanced, and he quoted the South East England Development Agency saying the same thing. The hon. Gentleman should talk to David Begg, the head of the Commission for Integrated Transport, who has made it clear that the multi-modal studies are not a careful and well-balanced option. He used the same argument as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, which is that there is no guaranteed funding for any of the rail or local transport initiatives—that applies to capital and revenue. That is why it is anything but a well-balanced option. However, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and the hon. Member for Eastbourne agreed about the beauty of the area.

I wish to make some general points about multi-modal studies. Twenty-two studies have been completed or are under way; 15 reports have been issued, and a further five are expected within the next six months; and there are 10 studies that concentrate only on road options. It is disappointing that the only major reference to multi-modal studies in the progress report that was issued yesterday is in the section covering the strategic road network. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that, but if I am not, that reinforces my hon. Friend's point about the multi-modal studies prioritising roads at the expense of other modes of transport.

I support the approach taken by the south coast multi-modal study. It is important that it should look beyond transport and address regeneration issues too. There are some interesting proposals in relation to light transit and other rail schemes—with, of course, the caveat about whether they would be funded.

Mr. Waterson

On the regeneration issue, does the hon. Gentleman not recall that the point that SEEDA's endorsement made was that these proposals would assist regeneration not only in Eastbourne but in a raft of south-coast seaside towns?

Tom Brake

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I also heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes said about the potential for road improvements benefiting areas that the hon. Gentleman may not have expected to benefit from such improvements.

Norman Baker

Some time ago, when I was chair of economic development at the county council and the A23 to Brighton was made into a dual carriageway, the area of Sussex that performed least well economically for the next three or four years was Brighton, because businesses were able to relocate to Crawley and Gatwick. It was an own goal for Brighton.

Tom Brake

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. He points to the fact that we cannot reach a rapid conclusion about the impact that schemes may have on regeneration.

One of my worries about the south coast multi-modal study is its statement that Looking ahead to 2030 and beyond, the role of demand management measures is likely to grow, both as a means of funding sustainable transport measures". That concern was echoed by David Begg, whom the Government presumably listen to and respect. It seems too late in the day to talk about demand management measures by 2030 or beyond. Mr. Begg said that we needed some form of demand restraint and that the best form of demand restraint is some form of road user charging … a pricing system which varies with the level of congestion". I hope that the Minister will say something about that and endorse the views that have been expressed by Mr. Begg.

As for the implementation of the multi-modal study and others, it will be useful if the Minister can confirm the exact meaning of complete and act upon the programme of 'multi-modal studies'. That phrase was used in the progress report, which referred also to the strategy being for the period up to 2010. Will the hon. Gentleman say what schemes he expects to be completed by 2010? If they are not completed by then, by when would he expect them to be completed? Will he also confirm the budget that has been set aside for the multi-modal studies?

I expect the Minister's response will be that such matters are contained within the £180 billion, in which case will he explain exactly what process will be used to prioritise different competing schemes, whether proposed by the SRA or local authorities or identified in the multi-modal studies? Can he confirm whether the cut in the rail budget of £312 million over the next three years is likely to have an impact on the multi-modal studies? I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will say no, because no budget has been set for the rail proposals in the multi-modal studies, certainly not within three years. However, other feasibility studies may be in the pipeline. I should welcome his response to such matters.

Will the Minister comment on Mr. Begg's concerns about the disconnection between the recommendations of regional planning bodies and the ability of the delivery agencies, especially the SRA, to fund those recommendations? Although the Secretary of State may be making such a response this afternoon, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to Mr. Begg's worry about the lack of clear guidance from the Government on charging and how that has made it difficult for multi-modal studies to make consistent proposals.

Obviously, we need to be able to judge the success of this and other multi-modal studies once the appropriate rail, cycling and other road measures are in place. Will the Minister comment, in a little more detail than is given in section 2.7 of the progress report, on what targets the Government will use to measure the success or otherwise of the study? The targets set out in the progress report are anything but smart; they are totally unquantifiable. They include: reduced congestion on inter-urban roads … road condition maintained at an optimum level". There is nothing in any of the targets—except that for numbers killed or seriously injured on the roads, on which the Government have done a good job—that anyone can measure. I hope that the Minister can flesh out the targets.

It is nice to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr. Chidgey. I conclude by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has set out some genuine concerns about the study, and has called for the Government to look again at their hierarchy in relation to the modes of transport that they will use to solve congestion and other transport problems. I hope that the Minister can give us some satisfaction on that important point.

12.1 pm

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the south coast corridor multi-modal study, although so far the debate has centred around the A27, Lewes and Eastbourne—probably because the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) are key participants in the debate. As a former Minister with responsibility for roads who flew by helicopter over those areas more than 10 years ago to look at the transport needs in that corridor, I am impressed by the fact that not much has happened since I left office. I am depressed to think that many of the schemes in the programme that the Government were bequeathed in 1997 and that were put on hold are now the top priorities in the study's recommendations. Five years have been wasted in which next to nothing has been done.

In many respects, the multi-modal studies have been a recipe for delay. The conclusions that they reach are very much in line with many of the conclusions reached by the previous Government, namely that one cannot restrict traffic growth and economic growth by not developing our trunk road network. It is important to remind ourselves that the study says that in the absence of any strategy, the number of vehicle km driven within the corridor"— that is the south coast corridor— will grow by around 30 per cent. by 2016 and 45 per cent. by 2030. This is despite a projected increase in rail use of 30 per cent. by 2016. We know that the hon. Members for Lewes and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) were at the forefront of the unrealistic campaign in 1997 and 1998, which was led by the Deputy Prime Minister, to make us believe that it would be possible not just to reduce congestion but to have real reductions in the number of vehicles on the road and the number of miles travelled by vehicles on the road. The Government's policy was premised on that enormous fallacy. It is only now that the Government realise what a fallacy it was. They are facing up to the consequences of increased congestion, accidents and damage to our economy as a result of their short-term policies.

The Government have set up the multi-modal studies. The hon. Member for Lewes said that there were 80 pages. I think that he means that the east of Lewes strategy development plan contains about 80 pages. The south coast corridor multi-modal study contains the best part of 700 or 800 pages, although I admit that I have not mastered it all because I anticipated that the debate would be centred on issues relating to Lewes and the A27. It is not reasonable for the hon. Member for Lewes to say that the study should be torn up and rejected by the Government just because its conclusions do not coincide with his prejudices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said, the study's conclusions are widely endorsed, and by people in not only the locality but the region.

People in my constituency, which is further west on the south coast, appreciate the importance of a good south coast corridor as a means of enabling people to travel from, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewes in order to take their holidays in Christchurch, Bournemouth or further west. That would prevent them from being tempted to cross the channel to spend their money on the continent. Likewise, the corridor would enable my constituents to visit the fine landscapes in the South Downs. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and I have spent enjoyable occasions in the Grand hotel in Eastbourne conferring and discussing strategies. We have benefited from that in the past and will benefit from it in the future.

Tom Brake

I invite the hon. Gentleman to comment on the validity of a study that is clearly meant to be taken as a package, although the Government will guarantee to fund only one component: the roads programme.

Mr. Chope

I do not think that the Government are guaranteeing to fund the roads programme. That would be funded by the Highways Agency because improvements would be made to trunk roads but not local roads. I understand that the railway part of the package would be funded through the Strategic Rail Authority. The hon. Gentleman is making an artificial distinction and he overlooks the fact that a benefit of the study is that the report considers road and rail together. Paragraph 4.33 of the east of Lewes strategy development plan says: The objective of reducing delays at Beddingham Level Crossing is particularly important due to the SoCoMMS proposals for increased train frequencies on the East Coastway route (from 4 to 7 trains per hour in each direction). That recognises that if the number of trains passing a level crossing is increased, the capacity for road vehicles is reduced, which is a reason why the report recommends strongly that something should be done about that. The present situation is intolerable.

Norman Baker

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that if the frequency of trains was increased and if they were properly priced and consisted of proper rolling stock, the number of vehicles on the road might be reduced?

Mr. Chope

Frankly, we have just been told—I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted this—that even an increase of 16 per cent. in the number of rail passengers by 2016 will not stop traffic on the roads increasing by 30 per cent. I do not believe that increasing rail capacity reduces the amount of traffic on the road. That is the myth that the hon. Gentleman has peddled for so long and it has been proved to be absolute nonsense. There is nowhere in the world where an increased rail capacity has reduced road use. There is significant road use even in London, which has an enormously expensive and well-developed underground and overground rail network. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington seem to think that the south coast and the South Downs are equivalent environments to central London. Public transport and access to trains play a greater role in London because people live very near stations.

There are vast rural areas in the South Downs—Lewes and Eastbourne are obviously specific towns—in which people have to use their motor cars. The report that the Government produced yesterday confirms that dependency on cars in rural areas is greater than that in urban areas. We ignore such realities at our peril because that leads to increased congestion, more accidents and danger on the roads, and more damage to the economies of the areas served by those highways. I totally reject the strategy of the Liberal Democrats.

It is worth quoting from the Halcrow report, but I hope that in doing so I will not be doing the Government's work for them. The Minister knows that I am, and have always been, a great enthusiast for investment in transport infrastructure. I look forward to the time when we can invest as much in transport infrastructure as was invested when I was the Minister responsible for roads. Almost every day of the week, I would be opening a bypass or a new stretch of road in which the Conservative Government had invested.

Norman Baker

What about railways?

Mr. Chope

I was not opening new railway lines because I was not the Minister responsible for railways. I was the Minister responsible for roads.

The Halcrow report says of the demand for road travel that some improvements are essential to the continued economic and social well-being of the region. There is currently severe traffic congestion at many locations along the A27 … and this is predicted to worsen in the future. This will make it more difficult for business and freight operators to gain access to many of the South Coast towns from the national road network. The report then deals with the strategy, which has been endorsed by many people. The strategy includes a number of measures to improve the current road network's overall efficiency. The report goes on to say: Highway improvements are of particular importance to rural communities. Public transport will continue to serve a relatively small portion of the market and the car will remain the most economically efficient means of providing mobility. Reducing congestion on the approaches to larger towns and improving trunk routes will also reduce the need to divert onto sensitive rural roads, bringing environmental benefits to these areas. The statements in the report are common sense. I hope that it will soon be on the Minister's desk, that a conclusion will be reached, and that recommendations will be made and accepted to incorporate in the roads programme the highway improvements that the report identifies. As I have said before, many of those improvements were identified by the previous Conservative Government and inherited in 1997 by the Labour Government before being put on the back burner. Had they not been put on the back burner, we would have seen them coming to fruition much earlier, with all the benefits that would have flowed from them.

Let us not forget that the original idea was to have a south coast trunk route between Honiton and Folkestone. Many people going from the south coast to the west country, or from the west country to the channel ports, are diverting their journeys and going along the M25, thereby adding to the problems of that motorway and transferring the environmental burden on to the people who live close to it. Congestion, journey lengths and journey times are increasing.

Norman Baker

Is it Conservative party policy to divert traffic from the M25 on to the south coast route? I am keen to know, so that I can let my constituents know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to encourage extra traffic on to the A27. Is that his policy?

Mr. Chope

We should have a coherent network of trunk roads in this country. If people have to travel many miles out of their way in order to gain access to the major air and sea ports, that is unnecessarily burdensome on the environment. I would prefer to have a proper route between Portsmouth and Dover, as was originally envisaged. That route would be a trunk road and would meet the needs of local people. It would be good for the economy of the south coast and it would help to reduce the burden that is carried by the M25.

This issue is important and I hope that the Minister will accept that there is much support from the Conservative party. There could be a consensus between the official Opposition and the Government on the need to improve road infrastructure along the south coast corridor sooner rather than later.

12.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing such an important debate. Several issues have received a useful airing, but I doubt whether I shall get round to responding to them all today. The hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with the Department and I shall write to him about the matters that I do not cover. I shall try, in the spirit of the season, to be non-contentious. However, I may stray.

The hon. Gentleman referred to my frequent presence at these Westminster Hall Adjournment debates. This is my penultimate debate this year. For those hon. Members who want to stay around, I should say that I shall be responding to a further debate today. Sadly, in January, debates on transport matters will be held every other week because the House, in its wisdom, decided that certain Departments should respond to debates one week, while other Departments do so the following week. I am sure that that decision will bring considerable relief to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I see that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and his colleagues who also have to take part in such debates are nodding. The hon. Gentleman's good researcher will only be working once a fortnight on his questions, rather than each week.

If I just refer to "the study", that might be one way to avoid using the awful acronym SoCoMMS. It may help the Hansard reporters, too. I wish first to make general points, after which I shall pick up on specific matters that have been raised. As the hon. Member for Lewes will be aware, my ministerial colleagues and I are considering the recommendations of the study, so the debate is particularly timely. The multi-modal studies were set up to examine some of the most difficult problems of the strategic transport network. I am pleased that there has been a general welcome for the approach of the studies. We seem to have cross-party accord.

We are considering the contribution that all modes of transport can play in finding solutions to the problems. Last week, the Secretary of State announced his response to the recommendations of five of the studies, as part of the £5.5 billion package of major national and local road measures. Over the decade, in excess of £180 billion of public and private money will be spent on transport. We are putting in place a programme to tackle years of under-investment in our transport infrastructure, especially rail infrastructure.

We are looking forward to taking a balanced approach between road, rail, public and private transport. Our objective is to improve Britain's road and rail network as well as getting better use out of the existing infrastructure. Our measures are aimed at tackling congestion, improving reliability and making journeys safer. They will also help to improve the environment and the quality of life. The south coast multi-modal study is one of a tranche of two programmes that were identified in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England".

Of the full programme for studies, eight have now reported and the Secretary of State has announced his response to the recommendations. The primary purpose of the south coast's study was to recommend a long-term sustainable strategy for transport between Southampton and Margate. I fully understand why the debate has focused on part of that area, but the consultant's recommendations are intended to recognise the need for economic regeneration in the corridor, while aiming to minimise the potential for environmental damage in a sensitive area. Such issues were raised by the hon. Member for Lewes.

The study has been charged specifically with making recommendations on four remitted A27 road schemes: the Arundel bypass, potential bypasses at Wilmington and Selmeston and improvements at Southerham and Beddingham, picking up the long-term issues that were identified from the previous M27 Worthing and Lancing integrated transport studies and the Hastings multi-modal studies. In the past few days, we have received south-east England's regional assembly's views on the study and we are now considering the advice. It raises important issues, some of which have been aired here today, not least because of the environmental impact that the schemes could have. I have been asked to say when we will make decisions, but we must carefully examine all aspects of the schemes—the benefits and environmental impacts. However, I hope that we will have some conclusions by spring 2003.

The hon. Member for Lewes raised several issues. There may be some misunderstanding about the multi-modal study process. Some of the findings coming out of the studies and the consultation, and from discussion between the Highways Agency and the SRA, will need local solutions. Similarly, some of the methods to reduce traffic in the sensitive areas that he described will be delivered specifically in local areas—they are "local solutions for local areas" or however the phrase goes.

The hon. Gentleman also made general points about the relative costs of different modes of transport, including one relating to the time that Labour had been in office, which is why I tried to tease out what his party's view was and how things might be done differently in the unlikely event of the election of a Liberal Democrat Government. When asked about whether they would increase the cost of motoring, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington were extremely coy. It is a difficult question that we have to answer.

We must appreciate that many of the issues relating to motoring are not in the direct control of the Government. The price of oil and cars and the efficiencies that car manufacturers are making are bringing private motor cars to a larger number of people. There are many disadvantaged people in my constituency and I am glad that some of them now have access to a motor car.

I am also pleased that my constituents now have access to better public transport. There is huge investment in the infrastructure, especially in the railways. Some of the subsidies mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes to reduce bus fares are in the gift of local authorities, so perhaps he should make representations to his own.

Norman Baker

The point that I am trying to make is not that the Government are not committed to rail-I believe instinctively and philosophically that they are. It is simply that the SRA will not deliver the schemes. It will not deliver the applications. It does not have the money and says that it has to cut back trains and concentrate on the north-west main line. The Government will deliver the road schemes, but the SRA will not deliver those for rail.

Mr. Jamieson

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the Highways Agency, the SRA or any agency operating on behalf of the Government with private as well as public funding must consider priorities. He mentioned priorities in his speech. His own Treasury spokesperson said not only that any spending pledges would have to be funded within current budgets, but that they represented a priority for scarce resources. I agree. They will be prioritised. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the SRA is examining the schemes. It can deliver some and some will be delivered by local transport plan funding.

Norman Baker

rose—

Mr. Jamieson

I want to talk about the Southerham-Beddingham crossing, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is an important issue that we must get on to. There is no doubt that the junction is dangerous. The police record the incidents that have caused injury, but there have been many other collisions with the barriers that have caused damage and which were extremely hazardous. It is surprising that there have not been more injuries on the crossing.

The hon. Member for Lewes said that we had rushed out the consultation. That is not the case. He suggests that we were anticipating what might have been in the multi-modal studies decision. Hon. Members would agree that, because it is strategic for the road network and for rail, it is important for rail that we get the consultation moving, regardless of the ultimate decisions of the multi-modal study.

The other important issue—the consultation should pick it up—is that if that line is not bridged, the movement of traffic along the A27 will be severely restricted. The hon. Member for Lewes is waving his arms, but he knows that the area suffers considerably from flooding and that tunneling will present serious engineering problems, not least the cost. He made the point that some of the consultation on the multi-modal study did not take place in Lewes. If I might make a seasonal reference, I think that the inn was full—there were no places in which the consultation could take place at the time. However, I have some extraordinarily good news. As we speak, Highways Agency officials are looking at a place in Lewes that is suitable for the purpose, so he can now look forward to the consultation.

Mr. Waterson

I wonder whether, as there has already been one consultation session in Lewes, the Minister can give some thought to holding one in Eastbourne? It is of enormous importance to people in my constituency. Alternatively, could he invite me to the consultation in Lewes?

Mr. Jamieson

I think that it would be quite in order to invite the hon. Gentleman along. I am sure that he will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Lewes, who will no doubt take him round the fine hostelries of that fine town.

I agree that we should make information more widely available. The point has been made that roads are delivered and rail is not. That is incorrect—there will be a balanced approach, based on priorities.

Tom Brake

rose—

Mr. Jamieson

I shall give way just once, but I want to answer points made by other hon. Members.

Tom Brake

On the point of road versus rail, is it the case that in the multi-modal studies that have reported to date, the Government have given the go ahead for the road schemes, but have referred the rail schemes to the SRA, which has already told us that it has not budgeted for the multi-modal study rail proposals and will therefore not proceed?

Mr. Jamieson

It is correct for us to refer those to the SRA, which is now considering all the proposals. It will consider those, and the proposals that arise in the next tranche of multi-modal studies, in the light of its priorities. The hon. Gentleman has told us previously that there is no more money in the Liberal Democrat pot. How would his party fund those schemes? Perhaps we shall hear in a future debate.

I move to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). At the risk of embarrassing him, I shall say that he made a well thought out and powerful case for his constituents, and made many of the points that I might have made. He welcomed the study and said that not only was it a balanced approach but that it was brilliant news for his constituents. He made a valid point about rail connections and the problems with the junction. If it is not improved, either the road system or the railway to and from his constituency will be inhibited. He reinforced the important points for the economy about regeneration. Nobody has mentioned that a considerable amount of new house building is planned for the area. The population will increase and that will put pressure on the roads and on the rail system.

It is difficult for me to cover all the points in the time that remains. If hon. Members would like any other answers, I shall deal with them by correspondence. The debate has been helpful, and the hon. Member for Lewes has raised some important points. I am glad that we have found some cross-party accord on at least the method that we have used to bring forward the multi-modal studies.

Back to